On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 16:41 +0200, GÃbor Stefanik wrote: > My intention with the meeting is to form an actual proposal that all > implementors can agree on. We can produce proposals, and even new > standardized fields to no avail, as some implementors (especially > OpenBSD) appear to be stuck with implementations that collide with the > standard. These implementors need to be "awakened" and entered into > the discussions before anything can be done. There's nothing the standard can do about that. Like I said, we've talked about that enough in my opinion. > > Your own proposal had technical flaws (and in my opinion tried to do too > > much at a time) that you haven't addressed -- doing that would be much > > more productive than any such meeting. > > What technical flaws are you trying to point out exactly? (The TX > flags field? My point is that it's worthless to "standardize" TX flags > by extending it and moving to "Defined fields" if noone is willing to > implement it.) But people are already implementing it, and if they do something else that's their problem. The flaw I'm thinking of was over the RTS/CTS handling where some people (including myself) had comments. Besides, you're supposed to make at least two implementations when proposing a standard field. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part