Greetings,
It looks as if we have a few venue options for a third wireless summit.
While this may seem like a luxury, none of the options are perfect
for everyone and each has it's own potential drawbacks. So rather
than move blindly forward with any given venue, I think it would be
good to discuss some potential agenda points.
This will serve both to determine who is most interested in attending
a summit and who might most need to be there. This will also serve
to justify the trouble of having a summit at all. So, I'd like to
open the 'floor' to discussion proposals.
What discussions pertinent to Linux wireless development do
you want to see? What can you contribute to those discussions?
How would a face-to-face discussion of that issue be better than an
online discussion?
If pressed I could make some suggestions. But for now I would like
to see what is on the minds of the wireless development community.
So, what would do you suggest?
Thanks,
John
--
John W. Linville
[email protected]
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 11:25 -0500, John W. Linville wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> It looks as if we have a few venue options for a third wireless summit.
> While this may seem like a luxury, none of the options are perfect
> for everyone and each has it's own potential drawbacks. So rather
> than move blindly forward with any given venue, I think it would be
> good to discuss some potential agenda points.
>
> This will serve both to determine who is most interested in attending
> a summit and who might most need to be there. This will also serve
> to justify the trouble of having a summit at all. So, I'd like to
> open the 'floor' to discussion proposals.
>
> What discussions pertinent to Linux wireless development do
> you want to see? What can you contribute to those discussions?
> How would a face-to-face discussion of that issue be better than an
> online discussion?
cfg80211/nl80211 - overview, get Johannes to disseminate knowledge
because email isn't optimal for this. I haven't had enough time to jump
into it yet, but the fact that Johannes is the vast majority of the
effort here is worrisome. Having a reference implementation (airo,
atmel, maybe libertas) of a fullmac driver ported to cfg80211 would
probably be very useful, even just to get a sense of how the API works.
rfkill - how to clean up the mess, including how it's all supposed to
work from userspace with kernel bits, ACPI bits, vendor modules like
asus_acpi and dellWirelessCtl, input-only buttons, etc
WiMAX - what hardware is coming, what the APIs should look like (OMA-DM
is likely to be part of Sprint's stack for XOHM), what the driver
situation is, and how to fend off a repeat of the 802.11 regulatory
situation for WiMAX (most parts are apparently fullmac right now, but
softmac will surely come).
802.11s - nail down issues that Javier/Luis/others might have and try to
push the 802.11s mesh stack forward (driver issues, API issues, etc)
802.11n - do we need any discussion here or is it just a question of
executing on the current plan?
Userspace MLME - what's going on here? Noise around this seems to be
quieter these days. Is stuff going according to plan/schedule or are
there roadblocks?
lib80211/fullmac - maybe this just needs to be picked up and done by
somebody and doesn't need any discussion or whatever
Dan
On Thursday 31 January 2008, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 11:25 -0500, John W. Linville wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
Gee, I was going to say something but Dan came forward with
anything I had on my mind...sooo, yeah, all that Dan said.
On Feb 1, 2008 9:15 PM, Dan Williams <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 20:29 +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> > On Feb 1, 2008 2:42 PM, Johannes Berg <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > cfg80211/nl80211 - overview, get Johannes to disseminate knowledge
> > > > because email isn't optimal for this. I haven't had enough time to jump
> > > > into it yet, but the fact that Johannes is the vast majority of the
> > > > effort here is worrisome. Having a reference implementation (airo,
> > > > atmel, maybe libertas) of a fullmac driver ported to cfg80211 would
> > > > probably be very useful, even just to get a sense of how the API works.
> > >
> > > cfg80211/nl80211 is no further for fullmac drivers than a year ago, all
> > > work it got so far is for hostapd.
> > >
> > > I have a fairly decent plan how to add association/... support but it
> > > lacks execution because it's completely boring work that doesn't buy us
> > > any new features since we still have to support wext.
> > >
> > Security setting is a bit broken. There is a missing separation
> > between static and dynamic./WPA wep keys.
>
> How do you mean?
In wext there is encoding setting for static keys only for wep and
extended encoding for dynamic keys including wep keys. In mac80211
both setting are funneled to the same point which is incorrect since
the usage is not the same. The major problem is in HW acceleration.
The static wep keys are passed as belonging to the station with
broadcast address and the driver cannot distinguish if the wep key is
dynamic key for the bcast address or it is a static wep key that has
to be used for all traffic. The problem is of course visible mostly in
AP mode.
Tomas
> Dan
>
>
On Feb 1, 2008 10:11 PM, Johannes Berg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Plzzz someone explain how WMM is implemented in mac80211 and suggest
> > some tests so we can be sure we implement it correctly, we really want
> > to add multiqueue support in ath5k ;-)
>
> Well nobody knows ;)
There is a certification plan for that under WiFi with tests.
The implementation has some holes but it's passing tests. One glitch I
know that the priority scheduler is definitely not working correctly
in hight loads. and you better have 4 hardware queues to comply with
specification. In that case it's better to have RR scheduler instead
of what is there now.
> > Also it would be great if someone explained what's new in
> > 802.11n/802.11s and what drivers are expected to do (i think on the
> > previous summit there was a talk about encrypted management frames, do
> > we have a plan for that ?).
>
> There's no 11s support yet, the cozybit guys never came forward with a
> second patchset after we commented on their first. 11w (encrypted
> management frames) is pretty straight forward, we add the new
> "encryption" algorithm and wpa_supplicant does the rest (in fact, it
> already has code)
>
> johannes
>
> cfg80211/nl80211 - overview, get Johannes to disseminate knowledge
> because email isn't optimal for this. I haven't had enough time to jump
> into it yet, but the fact that Johannes is the vast majority of the
> effort here is worrisome. Having a reference implementation (airo,
> atmel, maybe libertas) of a fullmac driver ported to cfg80211 would
> probably be very useful, even just to get a sense of how the API works.
cfg80211/nl80211 is no further for fullmac drivers than a year ago, all
work it got so far is for hostapd.
I have a fairly decent plan how to add association/... support but it
lacks execution because it's completely boring work that doesn't buy us
any new features since we still have to support wext.
> 802.11n - do we need any discussion here or is it just a question of
> executing on the current plan?
I think with the last patchset from Ron it's mostly done, cleanups still
to do and probably QoS improvements (I'm thinking multiqueue netdevs
here)
> Userspace MLME - what's going on here? Noise around this seems to be
> quieter these days. Is stuff going according to plan/schedule or are
> there roadblocks?
Nobody is working on this, but a good part is done since hostapd works
and the userspace MLME needs many of the same features. Again, the
biggest thing is cfg80211/nl80211 support, setting a device to userspace
MLME mode and implementing the communication.
johannes
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 21:11 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> There's no 11s support yet, the cozybit guys never came forward with a
> second patchset after we commented on their first. 11w (encrypted
We've been a bit busy, with some luck we will send the second patchset
today.
--
Luis Carlos Cobo Rus GnuPG ID: 44019B60
cozybit Inc.
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 21:47 +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2008 9:15 PM, Dan Williams <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 20:29 +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> > > On Feb 1, 2008 2:42 PM, Johannes Berg <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > cfg80211/nl80211 - overview, get Johannes to disseminate knowledge
> > > > > because email isn't optimal for this. I haven't had enough time to jump
> > > > > into it yet, but the fact that Johannes is the vast majority of the
> > > > > effort here is worrisome. Having a reference implementation (airo,
> > > > > atmel, maybe libertas) of a fullmac driver ported to cfg80211 would
> > > > > probably be very useful, even just to get a sense of how the API works.
> > > >
> > > > cfg80211/nl80211 is no further for fullmac drivers than a year ago, all
> > > > work it got so far is for hostapd.
> > > >
> > > > I have a fairly decent plan how to add association/... support but it
> > > > lacks execution because it's completely boring work that doesn't buy us
> > > > any new features since we still have to support wext.
> > > >
> > > Security setting is a bit broken. There is a missing separation
> > > between static and dynamic./WPA wep keys.
> >
> > How do you mean?
>
> In wext there is encoding setting for static keys only for wep and
> extended encoding for dynamic keys including wep keys. In mac80211
> both setting are funneled to the same point which is incorrect since
> the usage is not the same. The major problem is in HW acceleration.
> The static wep keys are passed as belonging to the station with
> broadcast address and the driver cannot distinguish if the wep key is
> dynamic key for the bcast address or it is a static wep key that has
> to be used for all traffic. The problem is of course visible mostly in
> AP mode.
Ah; right. I don't think there really should be a difference in the API
to differentiate static vs. dynamic WEP keys. Instead each key sent to
the driver (be it WEP, TKIP, or CCMP) should definitely have a BSSID to
which it applies which the userspace caller must set, and if the key is
to be used for _all_ traffic, then maybe have a flag for that or use
00:00:00:00:00:00 as the BSSID. If we use "magic" #s like 00:00... for
the BSSID then we've got to be sure to document that magic # which is
where we all fell down with WEXT. Hence I prefer flags, but whatever.
Dan
> Plzzz someone explain how WMM is implemented in mac80211 and suggest
> some tests so we can be sure we implement it correctly, we really want
> to add multiqueue support in ath5k ;-)
Well nobody knows ;)
> Also it would be great if someone explained what's new in
> 802.11n/802.11s and what drivers are expected to do (i think on the
> previous summit there was a talk about encrypted management frames, do
> we have a plan for that ?).
There's no 11s support yet, the cozybit guys never came forward with a
second patchset after we commented on their first. 11w (encrypted
management frames) is pretty straight forward, we add the new
"encryption" algorithm and wpa_supplicant does the rest (in fact, it
already has code)
johannes
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 20:29 +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2008 2:42 PM, Johannes Berg <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > cfg80211/nl80211 - overview, get Johannes to disseminate knowledge
> > > because email isn't optimal for this. I haven't had enough time to jump
> > > into it yet, but the fact that Johannes is the vast majority of the
> > > effort here is worrisome. Having a reference implementation (airo,
> > > atmel, maybe libertas) of a fullmac driver ported to cfg80211 would
> > > probably be very useful, even just to get a sense of how the API works.
> >
> > cfg80211/nl80211 is no further for fullmac drivers than a year ago, all
> > work it got so far is for hostapd.
> >
> > I have a fairly decent plan how to add association/... support but it
> > lacks execution because it's completely boring work that doesn't buy us
> > any new features since we still have to support wext.
> >
> Security setting is a bit broken. There is a missing separation
> between static and dynamic./WPA wep keys.
How do you mean?
Dan
> > > 802.11n - do we need any discussion here or is it just a question of
> > > executing on the current plan?
>
> > I think with the last patchset from Ron it's mostly done, cleanups still
> > to do and probably QoS improvements (I'm thinking multiqueue netdevs
> > here)
>
> Multiqueue and AP mode support is planed. AP mode requires changes
> in configuration interface (cfg, wext) and hostapd.
>
> > > Userspace MLME - what's going on here? Noise around this seems to be
> > > quieter these days. Is stuff going according to plan/schedule or are
> > > there roadblocks?
> >
> > Nobody is working on this, but a good part is done since hostapd works
> > and the userspace MLME needs many of the same features. Again, the
> > biggest thing is cfg80211/nl80211 support, setting a device to userspace
> > MLME mode and implementing the communication.
> >
> > johannes
> >
2008/2/1, Johannes Berg <[email protected]>:
>
> > What discussions pertinent to Linux wireless development do
> > you want to see?
>
> QoS/multiqueue rework.
>
Plzzz someone explain how WMM is implemented in mac80211 and suggest
some tests so we can be sure we implement it correctly, we really want
to add multiqueue support in ath5k ;-)
Also it would be great if someone explained what's new in
802.11n/802.11s and what drivers are expected to do (i think on the
previous summit there was a talk about encrypted management frames, do
we have a plan for that ?).
--
GPG ID: 0xD21DB2DB
As you read this post global entropy rises. Have Fun ;-)
Nick
> What discussions pertinent to Linux wireless development do
> you want to see?
QoS/multiqueue rework.
> What can you contribute to those discussions?
Thoughts, but no expertise. We should invite somebody like Patrick
McHardy :) But also see my recent mail.
johannes
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 12:29 -0800, Luis Carlos Cobo wrote:
> We've been a bit busy, with some luck we will send the second patchset
> today.
We weren't that lucky after all :-)
We have just released a fully functional mesh implementation [1], on top
of current wireless-2.6/everything. However I did not have time to
prepare the patches for the list, will do next Monday.
[1]: http://o11s.org/trac/wiki/RELEASE_NOTES-0.2.0
--
Luis Carlos Cobo Rus GnuPG ID: 44019B60
cozybit Inc.
On Feb 1, 2008 10:11 PM, Dan Williams <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 21:47 +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> > On Feb 1, 2008 9:15 PM, Dan Williams <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 20:29 +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> > > > On Feb 1, 2008 2:42 PM, Johannes Berg <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > cfg80211/nl80211 - overview, get Johannes to disseminate knowledge
> > > > > > because email isn't optimal for this. I haven't had enough time to jump
> > > > > > into it yet, but the fact that Johannes is the vast majority of the
> > > > > > effort here is worrisome. Having a reference implementation (airo,
> > > > > > atmel, maybe libertas) of a fullmac driver ported to cfg80211 would
> > > > > > probably be very useful, even just to get a sense of how the API works.
> > > > >
> > > > > cfg80211/nl80211 is no further for fullmac drivers than a year ago, all
> > > > > work it got so far is for hostapd.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have a fairly decent plan how to add association/... support but it
> > > > > lacks execution because it's completely boring work that doesn't buy us
> > > > > any new features since we still have to support wext.
> > > > >
> > > > Security setting is a bit broken. There is a missing separation
> > > > between static and dynamic./WPA wep keys.
> > >
> > > How do you mean?
> >
> > In wext there is encoding setting for static keys only for wep and
> > extended encoding for dynamic keys including wep keys. In mac80211
> > both setting are funneled to the same point which is incorrect since
> > the usage is not the same. The major problem is in HW acceleration.
> > The static wep keys are passed as belonging to the station with
> > broadcast address and the driver cannot distinguish if the wep key is
> > dynamic key for the bcast address or it is a static wep key that has
> > to be used for all traffic. The problem is of course visible mostly in
> > AP mode.
>
> Ah; right. I don't think there really should be a difference in the API
> to differentiate static vs. dynamic WEP keys. Instead each key sent to
> the driver (be it WEP, TKIP, or CCMP) should definitely have a BSSID to
> which it applies which the userspace caller must set, and if the key is
> to be used for _all_ traffic, then maybe have a flag for that or use
> 00:00:00:00:00:00 as the BSSID. If we use "magic" #s like 00:00... for
> the BSSID then we've got to be sure to document that magic # which is
> where we all fell down with WEXT. Hence I prefer flags, but whatever.
>
Sure this is not good to make too many interfaces, but a flag must be
added, i prefer to not abusing BSSID address.
One other difference is that there might be 4 keys for static wep
while only one wep key in WPA.
Tomas
> Dan
>
>
>
On Feb 1, 2008 2:42 PM, Johannes Berg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > cfg80211/nl80211 - overview, get Johannes to disseminate knowledge
> > because email isn't optimal for this. I haven't had enough time to jump
> > into it yet, but the fact that Johannes is the vast majority of the
> > effort here is worrisome. Having a reference implementation (airo,
> > atmel, maybe libertas) of a fullmac driver ported to cfg80211 would
> > probably be very useful, even just to get a sense of how the API works.
>
> cfg80211/nl80211 is no further for fullmac drivers than a year ago, all
> work it got so far is for hostapd.
>
> I have a fairly decent plan how to add association/... support but it
> lacks execution because it's completely boring work that doesn't buy us
> any new features since we still have to support wext.
>
Security setting is a bit broken. There is a missing separation
between static and dynamic./WPA wep keys.
> > 802.11n - do we need any discussion here or is it just a question of
> > executing on the current plan?
> I think with the last patchset from Ron it's mostly done, cleanups still
> to do and probably QoS improvements (I'm thinking multiqueue netdevs
> here)
Multiqueue and AP mode support is planed. AP mode requires changes
in configuration interface (cfg, wext) and hostapd.
> > Userspace MLME - what's going on here? Noise around this seems to be
> > quieter these days. Is stuff going according to plan/schedule or are
> > there roadblocks?
>
> Nobody is working on this, but a good part is done since hostapd works
> and the userspace MLME needs many of the same features. Again, the
> biggest thing is cfg80211/nl80211 support, setting a device to userspace
> MLME mode and implementing the communication.
>
> johannes
>
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 23:21 +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2008 10:11 PM, Dan Williams <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 21:47 +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> > > On Feb 1, 2008 9:15 PM, Dan Williams <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 20:29 +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 1, 2008 2:42 PM, Johannes Berg <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > cfg80211/nl80211 - overview, get Johannes to disseminate knowledge
> > > > > > > because email isn't optimal for this. I haven't had enough time to jump
> > > > > > > into it yet, but the fact that Johannes is the vast majority of the
> > > > > > > effort here is worrisome. Having a reference implementation (airo,
> > > > > > > atmel, maybe libertas) of a fullmac driver ported to cfg80211 would
> > > > > > > probably be very useful, even just to get a sense of how the API works.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > cfg80211/nl80211 is no further for fullmac drivers than a year ago, all
> > > > > > work it got so far is for hostapd.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have a fairly decent plan how to add association/... support but it
> > > > > > lacks execution because it's completely boring work that doesn't buy us
> > > > > > any new features since we still have to support wext.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Security setting is a bit broken. There is a missing separation
> > > > > between static and dynamic./WPA wep keys.
> > > >
> > > > How do you mean?
> > >
> > > In wext there is encoding setting for static keys only for wep and
> > > extended encoding for dynamic keys including wep keys. In mac80211
> > > both setting are funneled to the same point which is incorrect since
> > > the usage is not the same. The major problem is in HW acceleration.
> > > The static wep keys are passed as belonging to the station with
> > > broadcast address and the driver cannot distinguish if the wep key is
> > > dynamic key for the bcast address or it is a static wep key that has
> > > to be used for all traffic. The problem is of course visible mostly in
> > > AP mode.
> >
> > Ah; right. I don't think there really should be a difference in the API
> > to differentiate static vs. dynamic WEP keys. Instead each key sent to
> > the driver (be it WEP, TKIP, or CCMP) should definitely have a BSSID to
> > which it applies which the userspace caller must set, and if the key is
> > to be used for _all_ traffic, then maybe have a flag for that or use
> > 00:00:00:00:00:00 as the BSSID. If we use "magic" #s like 00:00... for
> > the BSSID then we've got to be sure to document that magic # which is
> > where we all fell down with WEXT. Hence I prefer flags, but whatever.
> >
>
> Sure this is not good to make too many interfaces, but a flag must be
> added, i prefer to not abusing BSSID address.
> One other difference is that there might be 4 keys for static wep
> while only one wep key in WPA.
Definitely; there will certainly need to be flags or a 'wep_key_idx'
field for WEP key indexes. Should probably just have a 'u32 flags'
somewhere that goes along with each key.
Dan
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 04:32:46PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> (Excuse the top-posting...this isn't really a reply to Dan, but I
> wanted to remind everyone of his agenda suggestions...)
>
> I'm sorry I didn't find-out sooner (apparently there was an email
> delivery problem of some sort), but we got approved for a mini-summit
> just before OLS in July:
>
> http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2008/minisummits.php
>
> This location is reasonably convenient for both North America and
> Europe, and many people attend the OLS event anyway. Are there any
> major objections to this venue?
It is getting late in the day, but it is worth mentioning that the
OLS registration price goes up tomorrow. So, if you think you will
come then better go ahead and register ASAP!
> I'm sure some people will need some help with funds for attending.
> I don't have any budget for such things, but if you are in need of
> assistance and believe your attendance to be necessary or beneficial
> then let me know -- I'll see if I can scratch-up some funds from
> somewhere.
I found that the Linux Foundation has a page describing their travel
funding process:
http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/Travelfund
John
--
John W. Linville
[email protected]
(Excuse the top-posting...this isn't really a reply to Dan, but I
wanted to remind everyone of his agenda suggestions...)
I'm sorry I didn't find-out sooner (apparently there was an email
delivery problem of some sort), but we got approved for a mini-summit
just before OLS in July:
http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2008/minisummits.php
This location is reasonably convenient for both North America and
Europe, and many people attend the OLS event anyway. Are there any
major objections to this venue?
I'm sure some people will need some help with funds for attending.
I don't have any budget for such things, but if you are in need of
assistance and believe your attendance to be necessary or beneficial
then let me know -- I'll see if I can scratch-up some funds from
somewhere.
Any comments?
John
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 12:52:03PM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 11:25 -0500, John W. Linville wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > It looks as if we have a few venue options for a third wireless summit.
> > While this may seem like a luxury, none of the options are perfect
> > for everyone and each has it's own potential drawbacks. So rather
> > than move blindly forward with any given venue, I think it would be
> > good to discuss some potential agenda points.
> >
> > This will serve both to determine who is most interested in attending
> > a summit and who might most need to be there. This will also serve
> > to justify the trouble of having a summit at all. So, I'd like to
> > open the 'floor' to discussion proposals.
> >
> > What discussions pertinent to Linux wireless development do
> > you want to see? What can you contribute to those discussions?
> > How would a face-to-face discussion of that issue be better than an
> > online discussion?
>
> cfg80211/nl80211 - overview, get Johannes to disseminate knowledge
> because email isn't optimal for this. I haven't had enough time to jump
> into it yet, but the fact that Johannes is the vast majority of the
> effort here is worrisome. Having a reference implementation (airo,
> atmel, maybe libertas) of a fullmac driver ported to cfg80211 would
> probably be very useful, even just to get a sense of how the API works.
>
> rfkill - how to clean up the mess, including how it's all supposed to
> work from userspace with kernel bits, ACPI bits, vendor modules like
> asus_acpi and dellWirelessCtl, input-only buttons, etc
>
> WiMAX - what hardware is coming, what the APIs should look like (OMA-DM
> is likely to be part of Sprint's stack for XOHM), what the driver
> situation is, and how to fend off a repeat of the 802.11 regulatory
> situation for WiMAX (most parts are apparently fullmac right now, but
> softmac will surely come).
>
> 802.11s - nail down issues that Javier/Luis/others might have and try to
> push the 802.11s mesh stack forward (driver issues, API issues, etc)
>
> 802.11n - do we need any discussion here or is it just a question of
> executing on the current plan?
>
> Userspace MLME - what's going on here? Noise around this seems to be
> quieter these days. Is stuff going according to plan/schedule or are
> there roadblocks?
>
> lib80211/fullmac - maybe this just needs to be picked up and done by
> somebody and doesn't need any discussion or whatever
>
> Dan
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
John W. Linville
[email protected]
On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 14:23 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > I'm sorry I didn't find-out sooner (apparently there was an email
> > > delivery problem of some sort), but we got approved for a mini-summit
> > > just before OLS in July:
> > >
> > > http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2008/minisummits.php
> > >
> > > This location is reasonably convenient for both North America and
> > > Europe, and many people attend the OLS event anyway. Are there any
> > > major objections to this venue?
> >
> > It is getting late in the day, but it is worth mentioning that the
> > OLS registration price goes up tomorrow. So, if you think you will
> > come then better go ahead and register ASAP!
>
> Early registration has been extended to the 15th.
It doesn't, however, seem to be in place in the web application yet,
double-check against the FAQ before paying...
johannes
2008/4/1, Johannes Berg <[email protected]>:
>
> On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 14:23 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > > I'm sorry I didn't find-out sooner (apparently there was an email
> > > > delivery problem of some sort), but we got approved for a mini-summit
> > > > just before OLS in July:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2008/minisummits.php
> > > >
> > > > This location is reasonably convenient for both North America and
> > > > Europe, and many people attend the OLS event anyway. Are there any
> > > > major objections to this venue?
> > >
> > > It is getting late in the day, but it is worth mentioning that the
> > > OLS registration price goes up tomorrow. So, if you think you will
> > > come then better go ahead and register ASAP!
> >
> > Early registration has been extended to the 15th.
>
>
> It doesn't, however, seem to be in place in the web application yet,
> double-check against the FAQ before paying...
>
>
> johannes
>
>
Should we make reservations etc until 26 ? How many days we 'll have
for the summit ?
--
GPG ID: 0xD21DB2DB
As you read this post global entropy rises. Have Fun ;-)
Nick
> > I'm sorry I didn't find-out sooner (apparently there was an email
> > delivery problem of some sort), but we got approved for a mini-summit
> > just before OLS in July:
> >
> > http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2008/minisummits.php
> >
> > This location is reasonably convenient for both North America and
> > Europe, and many people attend the OLS event anyway. Are there any
> > major objections to this venue?
>
> It is getting late in the day, but it is worth mentioning that the
> OLS registration price goes up tomorrow. So, if you think you will
> come then better go ahead and register ASAP!
Early registration has been extended to the 15th.
johannes
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 02:00:49AM +0300, Nick Kossifidis wrote:
> Should we make reservations etc until 26 ? How many days we 'll have
> for the summit ?
The mini-summit is just the 22nd. However OLS is the 23rd through
the 26th. I recommend staying for OLS both to experience and/or enjoy
the event itself but also for the extended opportunities to continue
discussions with other wireless developers and other members of the
Linux community.
The OLS folks seem to be recommending that people leave on the 28th.
However I usually leave on Sunday, in this case the 27th.
Hth! I hope to see you there!
John
--
John W. Linville
[email protected]