Return-path: Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.18]:55461 "EHLO mout.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753738Ab3EGO0B (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 May 2013 10:26:01 -0400 Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.24]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx002) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0Lmxbm-1U3xv21fOm-00h6zO for ; Tue, 07 May 2013 16:26:00 +0200 Message-ID: <51890EF1.8090006@rempel-privat.de> (sfid-20130507_162613_893045_A7D64CF3) Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 16:25:53 +0200 From: Oleksij Rempel MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Johannes Berg CC: radiotap@NetBSD.org, simon@superduper.net, Adrian Chadd , "ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Standardisation - adding 2 bit STBC and Ness to MCS References: <518127ED.9060900@rempel-privat.de> (sfid-20130501_163425_421280_1DE3F635) <1367527479.11375.19.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <5188AFFE.6070804@rempel-privat.de> (sfid-20130507_094050_709302_8E653F0F) <1367934867.8328.31.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <1367934904.8328.32.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> In-Reply-To: <1367934904.8328.32.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Am 07.05.2013 15:55, schrieb Johannes Berg: > On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 15:54 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: >> On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 09:40 +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote: >>> Am 02.05.2013 22:44, schrieb Johannes Berg: >>>> On Wed, 2013-05-01 at 16:34 +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote: >>>> >>>>>> With this I believe we have everything needed to start the 3 week >>>>>> comment period. >>>> >>>> Yeah, I guess there was plenty of time. I would have preferred a >>>> separate thread, but I guess there's little enough traffic on this list >>>> so it doesn't really matter. >>>> >>>>> There is a bit more then 3 week now. I would like to have this approved :) >>>>> Are there any thing needed to finish this? >>>> >>>> http://www.radiotap.org/Standardisation >>>> >>>> johannes >>>> >>> >>> ping. >>> >>> Johannes, are you the one who says last word on standardisation for >>> radiotap? >> >> No? I thought the link made that pretty clear. >> >> But since nobody poked holes in this and it's been a long time, I think >> you should probably just post "this has been adopted now" ... > > Or actually, go to step 5, preferably reposting it as a separate thread. Simon, will you do it? You stared it and did most of the work... -- Regards, Oleksij