On Aug 22, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Richard Sharpe <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Guy Harris <[email protected]> wrote: > >> No, I'd add a DMG field to radiotap, containing, among other values, an mcs >> subfield, with a Clause 21 MCS value in it. > > Yes, in an ideal world. However, there will likely be captures out > there for a while yet that do not have such a DMG field because it is > not yet defined. So software that reads radiotap captures and that cares about 11ad information needs to have a workaround wherein frames lacking a DMG field (which means "all frames", currently, as there isn't yet a DMG field) and having a channel frequency in the 11ad range have an 11ad PHY and, if they have MCS or VHT fields, ignore all items in those fields that don't apply to 11ad and *perhaps* interpret the MCS value in the MCS field as if it were an 11ad MCS value rather than an 11n MCS value. >> I'm a software engineer, not an electrical engineer, so I'm not even >> remotely close to an authority on what radio-layer information would be >> useful, but a quick look at Clause 21 suggests that it might want to include >> a flag to indicate whether "Static Tone Pairing" or "Dynamic Tone Pairing" >> was used. > > Can you make that suggestion on the radiotap mailing list? I've followed up to your radiotap message with a suggestion for a DMG field. > I can then communicate it to the appropriate parties and perhaps get > them to join that mailing list as well. If they're using radiotap for 11ad frames, they most definitely should join the mailing list. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
