Re: A modified, and maybe final, proposal for an S1G header for RadioTap

On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 1:00 PM Johannes Berg <[email protected]> wr=
ote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> Couple of (last-minute!) comments ...
>
> > Structure
> > : u16 known, u16 data1, u16 data2, u8 ndp_type, u8[5] ndp_data;
> >
> > Required Alignment
> > : 4
>
> If you only have u16 data, what's the value of 4-byte alignment?

Good point.

> > Is NDP indicates that this is an NDP frame, however, the content might
> > not be known.
>
> Should that have a note that the zero-length PSDU field should be set?
> But if so, should that get a new sub-type for S1G NDP?

Hmmm, I need to look at that again in light of how the S1G NDP stuff played=
 out.

> Otherwise:
>
> > > **`0x0080`** | Is NDP, which means no packet data follows this header=
! |
>
> this overlaps?
>
> I guess it doesn't really matter though if that overlaps.

Will look at and fix.

> > > **`0x00C0`** | Number spatial streams: 0=3D1 Spatial stream, 1=3D2, .=
.
> > 3=3D4 Spatial streams |
>
> "Number of" I guess

OK. Will fix.

--=20
Regards,
Richard Sharpe
(=E4=BD=95=E4=BB=A5=E8=A7=A3=E6=86=82=EF=BC=9F=E5=94=AF=E6=9C=89=E6=9D=9C=
=E5=BA=B7=E3=80=82--=E6=9B=B9=E6=93=8D)(=E4=BC=A0=E8=AF=B4=E6=9D=9C=E5=BA=
=B7=E6=98=AF=E9=85=92=E7=9A=84=E5=8F=91=E6=98=8E=E8=80=85)