Re: Plans for an online meeting regarding Radiotap

2009-08-23 Thread Mike Kershaw
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

Re: Plans for an online meeting regarding Radiotap

2009-08-21 Thread Dave Young
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:

Re: Plans for an online meeting regarding Radiotap

2009-08-21 Thread Alexander Hall
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: >>>

Re: Plans for an online meeting regarding Radiotap

2009-08-21 Thread Gábor Stefanik
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

Re: Plans for an online meeting regarding Radiotap

2009-08-21 Thread 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: Use RTS > TX_FLAGS & 0x0020: Disable RTS/CTS usage Seems a bit strang

Re: Plans for an online meeting regarding Radiotap

2009-08-21 Thread Johannes Berg
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

Re: Plans for an online meeting regarding Radiotap

2009-08-21 Thread Johannes Berg
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

Re: Plans for an online meeting regarding Radiotap

2009-08-21 Thread Gábor Stefanik
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 >>

Re: Plans for an online meeting regarding Radiotap

2009-08-21 Thread Gábor Stefanik
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