Re: [Proposal]TX flags
Johannes Berg <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.netbsd.radiotap,org.kernel.vger.linux-wireless |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Thu, 2009-04-16 at 20:47 +0200, Gábor Stefanik wrote:
> Alternatively, the meanings of the {0,0} and {1,1} cases could be
> switched around (making the {0,0} case more logical, at the expense of
> the {1,1} one):
>
> TX Flags absent: Use RTS & CTS as needed.
> TX Flags present: {
> RTS=0, CTS=0: Use RTS & CTS as needed.
> RTS=0, CTS=1: Use CTS-to-self.
> RTS=1, CTS=0: Use RTS/CTS-handshake.
> RTS=1, CTS=1: Use neither RTS nor CTS.
> }
>
> (By reading the second proposal again, I find it more and more
> sympathetic... but let the discussion decide.)
That _works_, but is impossible to describe in any feature discovery.
johannes
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 836 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Johannes Berg (powerbook) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJJ54AUAAoJEKVg1VMiehFYgeEP/2CirixgZ3BMWSeFRvRfSnl5 Qw2KnEBk9mjHE/AommNHDekFVtuthoVKEif12gb57OKjvkbaOV21KdS9qUOKfJEp F8GjxFzc27aULdWvdg8XnUVsB2Kl6SFRuZBTjFmlxvcAUqVdNYaE2zOqsIJEP/V3 /jjjXo867k0DEfKnNeXyxvlXr5d2/O4KtI5u03Nw9CoHMrVB5StyuoIKVgdokTj3 i0J1topiEX/JFse7Db4Jp3/mbWKXc0h45Nh9v4xayqEqes05QgBairijHMuGWZ21 gL/UNQizPP6963OXDempE6z+B9A1gZuNCAr546x1DsV7fH5RKHpXTRmjw30gP+IP Q+2XETi+Uqxh+RpDblscxw2OROdGWN6JqcIPpiagHclBX7P5gonZwGLaGFDznCd2 +obpQDB6sljzcofis72bahntr7Uy2winzDcJmWg4dEMjph6qaUGtzlsfMUlu2CSv ZR7ZvU3OMIjaYYg/YDYiZBpxyEY5kt0yaJGyYZ6czFekSBrL8Zw2Hid02tRPT+Ms tkXVRtoz9y5qlSdeKZZaaqp/X8NRBjk3r9r4ZnEer8MBlfJxACuE76nsmWrH79rM m6b6y13ucFE/C/Pn62M9nrK2I1Ubr5FJZGrkc5PF86QCgss9CT1VrAXm4mNseJLZ wUYrjJmgrFl4ZnWBMX84 =Ez46 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----