From owner-freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 21 15:04:42 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 273C2106568F; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:04:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from netrolller.3d@gmail.com) Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (fg-out-1718.google.com [72.14.220.158]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7824A8FC60; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:04:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id l26so200298fgb.12 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 08:04:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=krYp7Nqm2JmQpRDNHjEt/zrVj/Lj2G/4jNoAyC3r4LE=; b=gmqes49ugC7kr+yE9F3APO3SVWaM6SpVtnv8z0U7/b/Be/9b1uwLWIiXzeyKZDGbLM BkybMQpIaEPKQ3dU9ODAhq5WX2Gf5kTSc/5MSR4ce8U1xqyF+CDmozj0vcOCuQ+SBGq4 HEK/cWXRt4ueVqboVuS6XQlpJcSCEPEqMQ/vk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=jiVud2XO1nVq+ia8GXcEOoRc/nK5HyjuN8ZMSfMP2BpSyBqoGwKoGAPTPI9Co45sAo ApQbn12C7lpQE02SMstToXoheWPeMJn3OsF/ePrHi9A/gzouubeHlCKkrP9GieY+nFdv 472ZTgbDr7cAxSZwQhnc5QhnfyTDSpkjcDW3c= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.86.225.38 with SMTP id x38mr917008fgg.59.1250867080407; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 08:04:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1250865918.4600.9.camel@johannes.local> References: <4A8EAFA6.9010608@gmail.com> <1250865255.4600.6.camel@johannes.local> <69e28c910908210741wd3bc391x311523f5b55fd4f1@mail.gmail.com> <1250865918.4600.9.camel@johannes.local> From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor_Stefanik?= Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:04:20 +0200 Message-ID: <69e28c910908210804h6181aab1w4a864392239aa1ac@mail.gmail.com> To: Johannes Berg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:29:26 +0000 Cc: Richard Farina , Dave Young , Rafael Laufer , Sepherosa Ziehau , linux-wireless , misc-openbsd , Thomas d'Otreppe , freebsd-mobile , Mike Kershaw , Damien Bergamini , Sam Leffler , tech-openbsd , netbsd-net , wireshark-dev , radiotap Subject: Re: Plans for an online meeting regarding Radiotap X-BeenThere: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile computing with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:04:42 -0000 2009/8/21 Johannes Berg : > On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 16:41 +0200, G=E1bor 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 t= oo >> > 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 > --=20 Vista: [V]iruses, [I]ntruders, [S]pyware, [T]rojans and [A]dware. :-)