Return-path: Received: from mail-ew0-f207.google.com ([209.85.219.207]:48487 "EHLO mail-ew0-f207.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932145AbZHVEif convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Aug 2009 00:38:35 -0400 Received: by ewy3 with SMTP id 3so1134298ewy.18 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:38:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <69e28c910908211455u5dcd70f0u94eab510ab91a69a@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A8EAFA6.9010608@gmail.com> <1250865255.4600.6.camel@johannes.local> <69e28c910908210741wd3bc391x311523f5b55fd4f1@mail.gmail.com> <1250865918.4600.9.camel@johannes.local> <69e28c910908210804h6181aab1w4a864392239aa1ac@mail.gmail.com> <1250867479.4600.11.camel@johannes.local> <69e28c910908211455u5dcd70f0u94eab510ab91a69a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:38:35 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Plans for an online meeting regarding Radiotap From: Dave Young To: =?UTF-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor_Stefanik?= Cc: Johannes Berg , Richard Farina , Mike Kershaw , Sam Leffler , Rafael Laufer , Damien Bergamini , Sepherosa Ziehau , "Thomas d'Otreppe" , radiotap , linux-wireless , freebsd-mobile , misc-openbsd , tech-openbsd , netbsd-net , wireshark-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 2009/8/22 Gábor Stefanik : > 2009/8/21 Johannes Berg : >> On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 17:04 +0200, Gábor Stefanik wrote: >> >>> 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 >> >> Seems a bit strange, wouldn't setting neither RTS nor CTS have the >> effect? Seems like 0x20 should rather be "use automatic and ignore the >> other bits". Anyway, not appropriate here, you should just bring a new >> proposal. > > The point is that if all bits are 0, auto-setup is used. The problem > with my original proposal (using two bits) was that an all-zero value > had different effect than not including the TX flags field (and simply > swapping "none" and "auto" would result in an illogicality where what > would logically be "use both" would become "use neither" - just the > opposite of its logical meaning). Making 0x20 mean "Auto-select > RTS/CTS", interpreting all-zeros as "Use neither", would have the same > problem as my proposal - all-zeros is different from a missing field. > (An empty, zeroed field 15 should have no effect on the process, > behaving as if field 15 was not present in the header.) > >> >>> 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)? >> >> No, that was ok, I just meant that therefore by definition it can't be a >> problem of lack of implementations. >> >> johannes >> > > > > -- > Vista: [V]iruses, [I]ntruders, [S]pyware, [T]rojans and [A]dware. :-) > Here also, please fix your cc-list, I'm not the david what you want to send to -- Regards dave