On Thu, 2009-04-16 at 15:33 -0500, David Young wrote:
> > > 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?
True, but why make the job harder than it is? Michael has a good point
too. And we have free bits, I don't see why we can't add one for "do
what I said" (wrt. rts/cts), which, if unset means to do be in automatic
mode and ignore the other bits.
Or we really do use a two-bit field with values;
0 automatic
1 neither
2 rts
3 cts
or something.
johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
