Re: Plans for an online meeting regarding Radiotap

[Gábor Stefanik <netrolller.3d%gmail.com@localhost>]

2009/8/21 Johannes Berg <johannes%sipsolutions.net@localhost>:
> On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 16:41 +0200, Gábor Stefanik wrote:
>
>> My intention with the meeting is to form an actual proposal that all
>> implementors can agree on. We can produce proposals, and even new
>> standardized fields to no avail, as some implementors (especially
>> OpenBSD) appear to be stuck with implementations that collide with the
>> standard. These implementors need to be "awakened" and entered into
>> the discussions before anything can be done.
>
> There's nothing the standard can do about that. Like I said, we've
> talked about that enough in my opinion.
>
>> > Your own proposal had technical flaws (and in my opinion tried to do too
>> > much at a time) that you haven't addressed -- doing that would be much
>> > more productive than any such meeting.
>>
>> What technical flaws are you trying to point out exactly? (The TX
>> flags field? My point is that it's worthless to "standardize" TX flags
>> by extending it and moving to "Defined fields" if noone is willing to
>> implement it.)
>
> But people are already implementing it, and if they do something else
> that's their problem. The flaw I'm thinking of was over the RTS/CTS
> handling where some people (including myself) had comments.

I've reworked RTS/CTS since then, just haven't got to sending a new
proposal yet. The current plan is as follows:

TX_FLAGS & 0x0002: Use CTS
TX_FLAGS & 0x0004: Use RTS
TX_FLAGS & 0x0020: Disable RTS/CTS usage

Or, in more C++-like notation:
switch (TX_FLAGS & 0x0026) {
       case 0x0002:
                 Use CTS;
                 break;
       case 0x0004:
       case 0x0006:
                 Use RTS;
                 break;
       case 0x0020:
                 Disable RTS/CTS usage;
                 break;
       default:
                 fall back to automatic selection
}

> Besides,
> you're supposed to make at least two implementations when proposing a
> standard field.

If I remember correctly, I made an implementation for the Linux kernel
(a generator-side implementation) and one for Wireshark (a parser-side
implementation). Or should I make two generator-side implementations
according to the requirement (e.g. one for Linux, another for
OpenBSD)?

>
> johannes
>



-- 
Vista: [V]iruses, [I]ntruders, [S]pyware, [T]rojans and [A]dware. :-)