Return-path: Received: from mail-lb0-f181.google.com ([209.85.217.181]:40558 "EHLO mail-lb0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757528Ab3AIKFW (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jan 2013 05:05:22 -0500 Received: by mail-lb0-f181.google.com with SMTP id ge1so904784lbb.40 for ; Wed, 09 Jan 2013 02:05:21 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <201301090038.01984.chunkeey@googlemail.com> References: <201301081715.49672.chunkeey@googlemail.com> <201301090038.01984.chunkeey@googlemail.com> Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 11:05:20 +0100 Message-ID: (sfid-20130109_110525_877979_8A25CD7E) Subject: Re: mac80211 and RX of A-MPDU with missing back agreement From: Johan Danielsson To: Christian Lamparter Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, sgruszka@redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > [...] I argued that if we have no (or no longer) a BA agreement > [even if the peer never got the DELBA] we can discard the AMPDU data > and sent a DELBAs to the HT peer once it tries sent us an A-MPDU > (again). This is actually what we should do according to 802.11-2012 > 10.5.4 - instead of calling dont_reorder. I think this is a reasonable interpretation, even though 10.5.4 doesn't explicitly cover this case (since the Ack Policy is set to Normal Ack). We can send a DELBA for a number of reasons, and setting the ReasonCode to UNKNOWN_BA seems appropriate in this case. /Johan