On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 05:54:33PM -0700, Peter Oh wrote: > no direct exception addressed in co-ex requirement section, but in > 802.11-2016 14.2.4 Mesh STA configuration it says Mesh STA configuration > treats as identical if > - For VHT mesh STAs, the Basic VHT-MCS and NSS fields in the VHT Operation > element of the > MLME-START.request are identical to the Basic VHT-MCS and NSS fields in the > VHT Operation > element received in the MLME-MESHPEERINGMANAGEMENT.indication. > * center frequency is a part of VHT operation element, hence if channel is > swap, then it won't be treated as identical anymore. > > - For HT mesh STAs, the Basic HT-MCS Set field of the HT Operation parameter > of the MLMESTART. > request is identical to the HT Operation element received in the > MLMEMESHPEERINGMANAGEMENT. > indication. > * primary channel is part of HT operation parameter although standard > addresses only Basic HT set here. > > in Table 9-365: Mesh Peering Open frame Action field format > - 20/40 BSS Coexistence element in mesh is optional which current > wpa_supplicant doesn't present in mesh action frame. > > Not sure if these sections are good enough to convince you, but there is > drivers (not clearly remember if it's drivers or mac80211) limitation which > needs this patch. Could you please identify the exact limitations that "need this patch"? I'm trying to understand whether this is just trying to hide an issue that should really be fixed somewhere else. > However this single patch can be dropped, since it's a kind of improving > reliability patch, not a functional patch. let me know if you want me to > drop it. Huh? Improving reliability? That does not match the previous claim that there are limitation that need this patch. So no, I'm certainly not taking this without a clear description of why it is needed. -- Jouni Malinen PGP id EFC895FA _______________________________________________ Hostap mailing list Hostap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/hostap
