On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 05:04:20PM +0200, G?bor Stefanik wrote:
> > 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 Wires
2009/8/22 GC!bor Stefanik :
> 2009/8/21 Johannes Berg :
>> On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 17:04 +0200, GC!bor 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:
This is not about OpenBSD. Stop this insane cross-posting.
Gabor Stefanik wrote:
> 2009/8/21 Johannes Berg :
>> On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 17:04 +0200, Gabor 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:
>>>
2009/8/21 Johannes Berg :
> On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 17:04 +0200, Gabor 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
On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 17:04 +0200, GC!bor 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 strang
On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 16:41 +0200, GC!bor 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 wit
On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 16:31 +0200, GC!bor Stefanik wrote:
> Hope to see you on Freenode at the set date. Again, if the time is a
> problem, respond, and I will try to find a better time.
I don't think there's any need to have an IRC meeting. We've hashed out
the way forward multiple times on the
2009/8/21 Johannes Berg :
> On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 16:41 +0200, Gabor 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
>>
2009/8/21 Johannes Berg :
> On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 16:31 +0200, Gabor Stefanik wrote:
>
>> Hope to see you on Freenode at the set date. Again, if the time is a
>> problem, respond, and I will try to find a better time.
>
> I don't think there's any need to have an IRC meeting. We've hashed out
> the
Radiotap is a de-facto standard for 802.11 frame injection and reception.
Up to field ID 13, it can truly considered a standard (all current
implementations
agree on fields 1-13), but after that, implementations diverge widely.
Here is a map of how current implementations define field IDs 14 an
10 matches
Mail list logo
