Bug 447 – WifiNetDevice L2 sublayers architecture figure

Bug 447 - WifiNetDevice L2 sublayers architecture figure


Summary:	WifiNetDevice L2 sublayers architecture figure

Status:	RESOLVED FIXED

Product:	ns-3
Classification:	Unclassified
Component:	documentation
Version:	ns-3-dev
Hardware:	All All

Importance:	P5 enhancement
Assigned To:	ns-bugs

URL:
Keywords:

Depends on:
Blocks:
	Show dependency tree / graph

Reported:	2008-12-16 11:18 UTC by Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro
Modified:	2009-01-23 10:19 UTC (History)
CC List:	2 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments
mercurial bundle (47.39 KB, application/octet-stream) 2008-12-16 11:18 UTC, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro	Details
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Description Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro 2008-12-16 11:18:33 UTC

Created attachment 336 [details]
mercurial bundle

I have been trying to understand the WifiNetDevice L2 sublayers architecture, and produced a diagram[1].  The attached patch adds this figure to the documentation, as it helps to understand the data flows.  Left out are the Layer 1 stuff, which do not interest me.  Probably Mathieu should review it, in case I made a mistake.

http://telecom.inescporto.pt/~gjc/WifiArchitecture.png

Comment 1 Tom Henderson 2008-12-16 12:08:17 UTC

(In reply to comment #0)
> Created an attachment (id=336) [details]
> mercurial bundle
> 
> I have been trying to understand the WifiNetDevice L2 sublayers architecture,
> and produced a diagram[1].  The attached patch adds this figure to the
> documentation, as it helps to understand the data flows.  Left out are the
> Layer 1 stuff, which do not interest me.  Probably Mathieu should review it, in
> case I made a mistake.
> 
> http://telecom.inescporto.pt/~gjc/WifiArchitecture.png
> 

Thanks for doing this.  I'd like to add it to the wifi chapter in the manual too (once Mathieu reviews it).

Comment 2 Mathieu Lacage 2009-01-07 07:30:46 UTC

I would suggestion changing slightly the layout to make it clear that MacRxMiddle does not do what is written on its right.

Other than that, looks great

Comment 3 Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro 2009-01-07 11:18:27 UTC

(In reply to comment #2)
> I would suggestion changing slightly the layout to make it clear that
> MacRxMiddle does not do what is written on its right.

You mean that MacRxMiddle does not do what the text says but MacRxMiddle+DcaTxop together do those things, right?  If so, I think added a dotted box grouping the two objects should suffice to convey that meaning.

Comment 4 Mathieu Lacage 2009-01-07 13:09:35 UTC

(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > I would suggestion changing slightly the layout to make it clear that
> > MacRxMiddle does not do what is written on its right.
> 
> You mean that MacRxMiddle does not do what the text says but
> MacRxMiddle+DcaTxop together do those things, right?  If so, I think added a
> dotted box grouping the two objects should suffice to convey that meaning.


ok.

Comment 5 Tom Henderson 2009-01-22 00:25:44 UTC

(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > (In reply to comment #2)
> > > I would suggestion changing slightly the layout to make it clear that
> > > MacRxMiddle does not do what is written on its right.
> > 
> > You mean that MacRxMiddle does not do what the text says but
> > MacRxMiddle+DcaTxop together do those things, right?  If so, I think added a
> > dotted box grouping the two objects should suffice to convey that meaning.
> 
> 
> ok.
> 

I would be happy to make this change and commit it by the end of the week if there are no other comments/issues.  Or else, anyone else feel free.

Comment 6 Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro 2009-01-23 10:19:54 UTC

I finally added the box and committed.