On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 07:29 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 03:48:56AM -0700, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 02:41 -0400, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > We weren't checking this at all. > > > > The question is whether we really want that. In other places, we trust > > the AP, why not here as well? > > Its not about trust its also about if it will logistically make sense, for > example you simply cannot use HT40- on channel 11 if yuo don't have > a channel 7. The NO_HT40- would indicate this to us so we don't bother. > The example I give is lousy as its not something that would occur usually > but with 5 GHz and regulatory rules changing things could be a bit > different. Yeah, good point. That's why we need to disassoc from the AP if we definitely cannot support it -- we cannot change the APs opinion of our HT40 capabilities. Of course, when we start out not supporting it we can tell it we don't do HT40. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
