Re: use of radiotap bit 14?

Johannes Berg <[email protected]> Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:43:03 +0200

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

> > 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.
> 
> OK.  And proper proposals should have "unassigned" under "Bit Number".

Yeah, I'll add a note.

> > I hope the audience of this website is smart enough to realise that.
> 
> Sure, but the contested fields set a bad example.  It may be better to
> write "don't do it again" in some places.

Ok :)

> > 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.
> 
> There should be a local/testing/vendor area or bit numbers so that the
> proposals can be tested before they are submitted.  Another approach
> would be to have an extra header consisting of items in the format like:

[...]

Dave had come up with a different proposal which I just captured on the
wiki at http://www.radiotap.org/Discussion/Vendor-Extensions

johannes

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