Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:17:32 -0500 From: David Young To: radiotap-rN9S6JXhQ+WXmMXjJBpWqg@public.gmane.org Subject: Re: [Radiotap] Query about recent Radiotap changes Message-ID: <20070326211732.GF11742-eZ+MEZF6i8Dc+919tysfdA@public.gmane.org> Mail-Followup-To: radiotap-rN9S6JXhQ+WXmMXjJBpWqg@public.gmane.org References: <16B0F9F6-C3B2-4A00-A789-C1DD3E279D08-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> <20070326195045.GA11742-eZ+MEZF6i8Dc+919tysfdA@public.gmane.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 09:11:17AM +1200, Scott Raynel wrote: > Hello again, > > On 27/03/2007, at 7:50 AM, David Young wrote: > > > > >The _F_RX_BADFCS flag in the field IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_RX_FLAGS is > >redundant. The flag duplicates the function of the _F_FCS field in > >the IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_FLAGS field. TIMTOWTDI is a recipe for design > >complexity. > > I was under the impression that IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_F_RX_BADFCS > duplicated the function of the _F_BADFCS, not _F_FCS, which indicates > the presence of FCS bytes in the frame. Or am I missing something? You're right. It duplicates the _F_BADFCS flag, not _F_FCS. Dave -- David Young OJC Technologies dyoung-eZodSLrBbDpBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933