From: Charles Clancy <clancy-VX+DGZyGJwM3uPMLIKxrzw@public.gmane.org>
To: radiotap-eZodSLrBbDpBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: RFC: moving Radiotap forward
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 21:30:47 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <469E7877.2080603@cs.umd.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070716214820.GD19812-eZ+MEZF6i8Dc+919tysfdA@public.gmane.org>
> 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."
> ...
> 3 We need to set minimum requirements for a field, such as specifying
> its width, alignment, name, and interpretation.
Sounds very IETF-ish. Any thoughts on publishing Radiotap as an
Internet Draft and eventually RFC? You could set up an IANA registry
for the extensible fields. IETF is typically L3+, but Radiotap could be
pitched abstractly enough that it wouldn't necessarily violate that.
I have significant experience with the IETF, and could help out with the
process if the group is interested.
> 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?
Well, I'm one...
> Do we / how will we support vendor-specific fields?
In similar situations in the past, I've defined field identifiers in
general to be 6 bytes, with the first four bytes being the vendor's
object identifier (OID) and the last two being the actual field.
OID==0x00000000 represents the non-vendor-specific list of 2^16 possible
fields.
--
t. charles clancy, ph.d. <> tcc-e45ueOrobK4@public.gmane.org <> www.cs.umd.edu/~clancy
prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-07-18 20:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-07-16 21:48 RFC: moving Radiotap forward David Young
[not found] ` <20070716214820.GD19812-eZ+MEZF6i8Dc+919tysfdA@public.gmane.org>
2007-07-18 20:30 ` Charles Clancy [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=469E7877.2080603@cs.umd.edu \
--to=clancy-vx+dgzygjwm3upmlikxrzw@public.gmane.org \
--cc=radiotap-eZodSLrBbDpBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).