On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 08:59:34PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-04-16 at 20:47 +0200, G?bor Stefanik wrote:
>
> > Alternatively, the meanings of the {0,0} and {1,1} cases could be
> > switched around (making the {0,0} case more logical, at the expense of
> > the {1,1} one):
> >
> > TX Flags absent: Use RTS & CTS as needed.
> > TX Flags present: {
> > RTS=0, CTS=0: Use RTS & CTS as needed.
> > RTS=0, CTS=1: Use CTS-to-self.
> > RTS=1, CTS=0: Use RTS/CTS-handshake.
> > RTS=1, CTS=1: Use neither RTS nor CTS.
> > }
> >
> > (By reading the second proposal again, I find it more and more
> > sympathetic... but let the discussion decide.)
>
> That _works_, but is impossible to describe in any feature discovery.
The discovery mechanism that we have begun to discuss would have a hard
time describing that feature at its current level of development, but
that is not the only feature that it will have a hard time describing.
Feature discovery may need more development before we measure new
proposals against it. What do you think?
Dave
--
David Young OJC Technologies
dyoung@xxxxxxxxxxx Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
