Re: WiMAX extensions

[David Young <dyoung-e+AXbWqSrlAAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 01:58:36PM -0400, Charles Clancy wrote:
> Guy Harris wrote:
> >>There would certainly be overlap with 802.11.  However most 
> >>implementations I've seen seem to prefix the fields with IEEE80211_, 
> >>so I'd think these would all need to be replicated for 802.16.  I'm 
> >>not sure the best way to handle it.
> >
> >Replicated, or renamed, with the old names kept around for source 
> >compatibility - or with IEEE80211_ and IEEE80216_ names for the same value?
> 
> Ideally, I'd think renaming fields that apply to any wireless standard 
> would be best, keeping around the old values for compatibility, of 
> course.  Then there could be protocol-specific fields for each standard.

I think that what you mean is, for the fields that WiMax and WiFi
have in common, add a generic alias---e.g., IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_RATE =
RADIOTAP_RATE, but do not assign new presence bits for common fields.

That sounds ok to me.

> I think the following would be globally useful:
> 
> IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_TSFT
> IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_RATE
> IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_DB*
> IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_ANTENNA

All of those fields have specific definitions.  Do they apply equally
well to WiMax?

> IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_FLAGS (though you might need a general flag set and a 
> protocol-specific flag set)

Sure.  The flags have almost run out, though. :-)

Dave

-- 
David Young             OJC Technologies
dyoung-eZodSLrBbDpBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org      Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933 ext 24