RE: [RFC] VHT fields

> We're just discussing for Linux how to specify the channel parameters
> and we need to consider 80+80 as well. Maybe these discussions should
> cross-pollinate.

Yes. However, this issue isn't directly related to or blocking the VHT field 
proposal, is it? Can I go ahead and post an adaptation request for that?

> I see two basic options:
>  * continue what we do now, and specify the control channel & type
>    around it (40+/40+,...)
>    + this is how linux works now
>    - many many channel types (4 for 80 MHz, 8 for 160 MHz)
>    - doesn't handle 80+80

When it comes to radiotap, this might do as an interim solution for chips
that don't support 80+80 yet. The new channel types would fit in the
XChannel field.

>  * specify the center frequency, width & control channel offset
>    + more aligned with the spec (?)
>    - requires backward compat handling
>    - doesn't handle 80+80

I feel this is the best long-term solution. The 80+80 case could be handled 
By adding a secondary center frequency.

Regards,
Alwin