Re: [RFA] namespaces and vendor extensions

On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 08:43 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:

> Wanted to clarify, on the vendor it_present bitmap, does it always
> have to also respect the bit for vendor extension bit 30? The current
> proposal seems to have language which would indicates so:
> 
> "This field is reserved in all namespaces and every it_present word,
> the standard radiotap namespace as well as all vendor namespaces. "

Yes, we have already reserved bit 31 in all it_present words, and now we
also reserve bits 29 and 30, so that vendor extensions can only use
numbers 0-28, 32-60, 64-92, ...

> If so what is the point of the reset bit? What I mean is that if we
> give radiotap its own OUI technically we could just reset ourselves to
> the radiotap namespace by specifying the radiotap OUI with what I'd
> think would be optional radiotap subnamespace material (length could
> be 0 I take it).

Well I personally would rather reserve a bit than try to come up with a
radiotap OUI (how would it get that?) and then special-casing the length
field etc. That just means _more_ special cases in the parser, rather
than less.

johannes

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=/SrH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----