Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> wrote: > The authors have reversed their position on FCFS and are now > considering Expert Review. I have not seen any objection from the WG on > this change in position.
> The only question left is how much information needs to be documented
> for a DE to make a determination of whether a new registration can be
> accepted. As Michael says, there is known vagueness in some of the
> specifications for what lies between the LinkType and the IP header,
> and it might not be possible to capture all of that in this
> specification. Are we comfortable with that vagueness and giving the DE
> (which will likely be the authors themselves) the leeway to decide
> whether a registration should be accepted?
For instance, consider
https://www.tcpdump.org/linktypes/LINKTYPE_APPLE_IP_OVER_IEEE1394.html
It doesn't say anything about where the IP header is.
It says that the packet type is an EtherType. "GOSUB 802.3"
Then there is:
https://www.tcpdump.org/linktypes/LINKTYPE_IEEE802_11_PRISM.html
which documents capture from a very common, but now very obsolete
Broadcom/Intersil card/chip. This chip was everywhere, and was the best chip
for wifi for a bunch of years. It's different than ethernet because the
capture format includes information about received power, etc.
The representation of the values may differ between different network
adapters. There is no official specification for the Prism header; this
person's page on the Prism header describes what he found from examining
some adapter drivers.
So it when it works, it works. When it doesn't...
But, better to have what we have than nothing.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [
] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
