From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Berg Subject: Re: HE (11ax) extensions Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 12:54:46 +0100 Message-ID: <1487764486.2215.5.camel@sipsolutions.net> References: <1486992211.19813.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> <1487162908.31885.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1487162908.31885.1.camel-cdvu00un1VgdHxzADdlk8Q@public.gmane.org> Sender: radiotap-owner-sUITvd46vNxg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org To: radiotap-S783fYmB3Ccdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org List-Id: radiotap@radiotap.org > Something like > > http://www.radiotap.org/fields/HE > > but I'm not really sure > * if sig_B_user[1] should be in HE or in HE multiuser > * if 3 bits are really needed for the Center 26-tone RU field, I'm > not sure how it could be non-present It really can be non-present, obviously SIG-B common field is already variable length :) Anyway, that proposal missed a number of things and didn't really make any sense, here's a new one: http://www.radiotap.org/fields/HE http://www.radiotap.org/fields/HE-MU-common http://www.radiotap.org/fields/HE-MU-user One thing I like less about this is that the bitrate of the MPDU will be recorded in the "HE" field for SU/trigger-based PPDUs, but in the "HE-MU-user" field for MU PPDUs. But since all the data is present, I guess that's actually fine. johannes