From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Young Subject: RFC: moving Radiotap forward Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:48:20 -0500 Message-ID: <20070716214820.GD19812@che.ojctech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: radiotap-admin-rN9S6JXhQ+WXmMXjJBpWqg@public.gmane.org Errors-To: radiotap-admin-rN9S6JXhQ+WXmMXjJBpWqg@public.gmane.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: radiotap-eZodSLrBbDpBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org List-Id: radiotap@radiotap.org I have written some proposals and desires for moving Radiotap forward. 1 This list will "keep" the Radiotap standard. That is, this is the venue at which to propose new fields for discussion and eventual adoption. We will adopt new fields into the standard when there is "rough consensus and running code." Let's strive for general agreement of the list membership, at least one driver and at least one packet capture tool that groks a new field. The list membership needs to be representative of folks who have a stake in Radiotap, especially developers of device drivers for Linux, OpenSolaris, *BSD, et cetera, and developers of packet capture/filter/dissection/display software such as WireShark, libpcap, Kismet, and TCPDump. "Are we all here?" 2 The Radiotap documentation needs to appear on "neutral ground" on the web---i.e., not in a NetBSD manual page. Web resources need to be "beefed up" to include a careful specification, lists of assigned numbers, examples, reference implementations, and tests. I have reserved a couple of Radiotap domain names to hold that information. Radiotap needs a volunteer web admin. 3 We need to set minimum requirements for a field, such as specifying its width, alignment, name, and interpretation. 4 We need to prioritize arresting Radiotap fragmentation. I do not know if we can reconcile the conflicting uses for bits 14 and upward, but I hope Radiotap stakeholders can be reconciled with our introduction of a consensus process. 5 It seems to me that we need to decide Will we adopt fields for WiMax? Do we have enough people both with a stake and with expertise in WiMax to do that? Do we / how will we support vendor-specific fields? Dave -- David Young OJC Technologies dyoung-eZodSLrBbDpBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933 ext 24