On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Jouni Malinen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:j@w1.fi">j@w1.fi</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 03:13:34PM -0800, Marcel Holtmann wrote:<br>
> The other thing are the quality and noise properties. Do you still want<br>
> these? Or can we just go for a signal property showing the dBm value<br>
> like iw scan does. I don't see any extra value in keeping deprecated<br>
> values in the new API.<br>
<br>
</div>Please lets get rid of them. One signal strength value that could be<br>
trusted to contain some useful data is much better than three with<br>
semi-random values no one can figure out.. Quality has never been<br>
defined properly and noise is not even a property of a BSS (it is per<br>
channel and should not have been mixed with scan results in the first<br>
place).<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think dropping noise floor is a bad idea unless you add another mechanism at the same time to get it (is there a mechanism in the new d-bus api?). The quality parameter has never been useful IMO and dropping it would make sense.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
> Do you think a "Display" or "Name" property showing the SSID in<br>
> converted UTF-8 would be useful. Or should the clients do that<br>
> translation?<br>
<br>
</div>I would love to have this, but I do agree that it is next to impossible<br>
to get this right in all cases.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree w/ not doing translation in the supplicant. In my world this work is part of the UI and unless we push state down into the supplicant it cannot do as good a job.</div>
<div><br></div><div>-Sam</div><div><br></div></div>