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
Component:	documentation
Version:	ns-3-dev
Platform:	All All

Importance:	P5 enhancement
Assigned To:	ns-bugs

URL:
Keywords:

Depends on:
Blocks:
	Show dependency tree / graph

Reported:	2008-12-16 11:18 EDT by Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro
Modified:	2009-01-23 10:19 EDT (History)

Attachments
mercurial bundle (47.39 KB, application/octet-stream) 2008-12-16 11:18 EDT, 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 From Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro 2008-12-16 11:18:33 EDT

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

------- Comment #1 From Tom Henderson 2008-12-16 12:08:17 EDT -------

(In reply to comment #0)
> Created an attachment (id=336) [details] [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 From Mathieu Lacage 2009-01-07 07:30:46 EDT -------

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 From Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro 2009-01-07 11:18:27 EDT -------

(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 From Mathieu Lacage 2009-01-07 13:09:35 EDT -------

(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 From Tom Henderson 2009-01-22 00:25:44 EDT -------

(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 From Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro 2009-01-23 10:19:54 EDT -------

I finally added the box and committed.