From: David Young <dyoung-e+AXbWqSrlAAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
To: radiotap <radiotap-eZodSLrBbDpBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [RFA] RX flags
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:12:17 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080707181217.GL1269@che.ojctech.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1214478891.20763.38.camel-YfaajirXv214zXjbi5bjpg@public.gmane.org>
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 01:14:50PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> This is a request for adoption of the following new radiotap features:
>
> * a new flag in the "flags" field (field 1):
> - short guard interval
> * the new "RX flags" field (field 14), currently containing the
> following flag:
> ??? - bad FCS
> - bad PLCP
Thanks for bringing this proposal. I agree with it, for one. I have
a few clarifying questions.
Just to be clear, perhaps cite the IEEE specs where they define FCS and
short GI. Implementors will want to know, is FCS failure different
than ICV failure? Presumably, by "bad PLCP," PLCP CRC check failure
is intended.
> I propose to make changes to radiotap as follows [1]:
>
> 1) Reserve bit number 6 (mask 0x40) of the flags field (field 1)
> because it was used by some implementations (wireshark) as "bad FCS"
Pleas excuse my forgetfulness. :-) Is there a conflict with "bad FCS"
at bit 6 field 1? Is there representation for the conflict on the list?
If not, I may bring a second proposal to assign bit 6 for bad FCS,
the rationale being that the bit is already used in that way, and some
implementations may avoid including an Rx flags field by using bit 6
field 1.
> I have attached two patches implementing these changes in
>
> * Linux for drivers using mac80211 (the generic 802.11 stack) and the
> libertas driver for Marvell hardware (no other driver uses these
> flags);
>
> * wireshark, adding an option to dissect bit 14 as "FCS in header" for
> non-standard radiotap files created by some tools (some of the
> proposals above are already implemented in wireshark)
>
> Unless further discussion shows this proposal to be infeasible, I will
> repost the "normative" changes (possibly as amended in the discussion)
> on July 7 to be adopted on July 14, at which point I will make the
> changes to the radiotap.org website.
>
> johannes
>
> [1] radiotap.org is the authoritative source, once the changes are
> adopted by the list I will make the changes there, we do not
> currently maintain a radiotap header file
> ???[2] ???This fills up the flags field because it is only 8 bits long.
Dave
--
David Young OJC Technologies
dyoung-eZodSLrBbDpBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933 ext 24
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-07-07 18:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-06-26 11:14 [RFA] RX flags Johannes Berg
[not found] ` <1214478891.20763.38.camel-YfaajirXv214zXjbi5bjpg@public.gmane.org>
2008-07-07 18:12 ` David Young [this message]
[not found] ` <20080707181217.GL1269-eZ+MEZF6i8Dc+919tysfdA@public.gmane.org>
2008-07-08 9:51 ` Johannes Berg
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-02-09 18:00 Johannes Berg
[not found] ` <1234172982.4175.184.camel-YfaajirXv2244ywRPIzf9A@public.gmane.org>
2009-02-19 2:04 ` David Young
[not found] ` <20090219020416.GM17342-eZodSLrBbDpBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>
2009-03-13 11:41 ` Johannes Berg
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080707181217.GL1269@che.ojctech.com \
--to=dyoung-e+axbwqsrlaavxtiumwx3w@public.gmane.org \
--cc=radiotap-eZodSLrBbDpBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.