Re: [RFA] HT extensions

David Young <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.netbsd.radiotap
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 02:04:49AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> This is a request for adoption of the MCS/HT information we've talked
> about earlier, based on my second proposal that includes valid bits
> within the field.
> 
> This proposal adds the following new field:
> 
> Bit Number: 19
> Structure: u8 known, u8 flags, u8 mcs
> Required Alignment: 1
> 
> The "mcs" field indicates the MCS rate index as in IEEE_802.11n-2009.
> 
> The "known" field indicates which flags are known:
> 
> 0x01: bandwidth
> 0x02: MCS index known (in `mcs` part of the field)
> 0x04: guard interval
> 0x08: HT format
> 0x10: FEC type
> 0x20: a-MPDU status
> 0x40: a-MPDU beginning/end
> 0x80: reserved
> 
> The `flags` is any combination of the following:
> 0x03: bandwidth - 0: 20, 1: 40, 2: 20L, 3: 20U
> 0x04: short GI
> 0x08: 0: mixed, 1: greenfield
> 0x10: 0: BCC, 1: LDPC
> 0x20: a-MPDU status - 0: not part of an a-MPDU, 1: part of a-MPDU
> 0x40: 0: first frame, 1: last frame
> 0x80: reserved

Suggestion for clarity: name each of the flags in the "flags" field, and
in the definition of the "known" field, indicate corresponding flags by
name.

How can an application use the first/last-frame information?

Dave

-- 
David Young             OJC Technologies
[email protected]      Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.