From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Young Subject: Re: [RFA] namespaces and vendor extensions Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 11:31:23 -0600 Message-ID: <20091201173122.GD6179@ojctech.com> References: <1259258152.32372.90.camel@johannes.local> <1259659011.32171.45.camel@johannes.local> <43e72e890912010843y208201aawb2ad95cbec98c814@mail.gmail.com> <1259687018.32171.96.camel@johannes.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1259687018.32171.96.camel-YfaajirXv2244ywRPIzf9A@public.gmane.org> Sender: radiotap-owner-sUITvd46vNxg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org To: Radiotap List-Id: radiotap@radiotap.org On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 06:03:38PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 08:43 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > If so what is the point of the reset bit? What I mean is that if we > > give radiotap its own OUI technically we could just reset ourselves to > > the radiotap namespace by specifying the radiotap OUI with what I'd > > think would be optional radiotap subnamespace material (length could > > be 0 I take it). > > Well I personally would rather reserve a bit than try to come up with a > radiotap OUI (how would it get that?) and then special-casing the length > field etc. That just means _more_ special cases in the parser, rather > than less. I'm not keen on adding a special case to the length field, either. Implementing the namespace-reset bit is simple. I foresee using namespace reset a lot in the same header [1]. Using a vendor extension field of 5-plus bytes each time, instead, will use a lot of bytes fast! I think that getting an OUI for Radiotap would be expensive. Dave [1] I'm thinking of using namespace-reset in re-transmission histories/strategies. -- David Young OJC Technologies dyoung-eZodSLrBbDpBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933