From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Loris Degioanni Subject: Re: use of radiotap bit 14? Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:06:34 -0700 Message-ID: <485ABC4A.4060801@gmail.com> References: <1188512214.7585.3.camel@johannes.berg> <1213897499.8967.46.camel@johannes.berg> <20080619185646.GA17738@che.ojctech.com> <1213902633.8967.84.camel@johannes.berg> <20080619193958.GB17738@che.ojctech.com> <485AB8B0.7060606@alum.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <485AB8B0.7060606-FrUbXkNCsVf2fBVCVOL8/A@public.gmane.org> 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 List-Id: radiotap@radiotap.org Guy Harris wrote: > David Young wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 09:10:33PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: >>> Problem is, wireshark actually takes bit 14 to mean "FCS in header". >> >> I'd forgotten about that, but I think that we still have some >> flexibility. > > As per my mail, we can just take that out; OpenBSD defines it as "FCS in > header", but doesn't appear to use it, and I don't know of any other > system that uses it as "FCS in header". > > Gerald, should we just remove the code that dissects > IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_FCS from the 1.0.1 Wireshark release, in preparation > for later releases interpreting presence bit 14 as RX flags? > AirPcap uses the IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_FCS flag. We can remove it, but all the trace files produced with airpcap+radiotap until now include it. Loris