RE: [RFC] VHT fields

Hi Johannes,

> I have a feeling though that the group ID would be useful to always
> have, even if it's just 0/63 in the SU case, to make it easier on
> filtering?

Good point, putting this into the SU_VHT field and dropping VHT_GROUP
will make things easier.
 
> > Also, I was wondering if we need all
> > of the 'known' flags in SU_VHT. The MCS field (after which SU_VHT was
> > modeled)
> > also has these, but I don’t know the rationale behind them. Can one
> > assume a
> > driver has full access to the PLCP header and thus can fill in most
> > of fields
> > in the SU_VHT field?
> 
> I know that's usually the case for your devices, but it isn't typically
> the case for all the random devices out there ... so I think we should
> have the known flags to not run into a situation later where a device
> has to lie.

Makes sense, I'll keep these in then.

Thanks,
Alwin