Re: use of radiotap bit 14?

Johannes Berg <[email protected]> Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:18:49 +0200

Newsgroups	org.netbsd.radiotap
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 14:13 -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 19:44 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > Ok, I tried collecting all the information, and here's what I found so
> > far:
> > 
> > http://www.radiotap.org/suggested-fields
> > 
> > Bits 14, 15 and 16 are defined twice.
> 
> If we call those fields "suggested", we deceive ourselves.  Suggested
> fields should not come with bit numbers.  There bit numbers should be
> assigned only when the suggestion is accepted.

Well, yes, but it seemed prudent to not introduce a third
"used-but-not-standardised" category and these bit numbers reflect the
fact that they are indeed used with those bit numbers in varying OSes.

I hope the audience of this website is smart enough to realise that.

> Perhaps you could add your proposal without a bit number and then ask
> for the numbers to be assigned?  If 19 is the lowest uncontested number,
> then it would be assigned.
> 
> There is no need to wait with your proposals until the contested fields
> controversy is resolved.

Well, I don't have a proposal yet, those fields that are there are
sufficient if we also accept the vendor-namespaces idea that I'm just
trying to put into understandable words.

johannes

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 836 B)