Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: [Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 2794] Questionable display filter fields
From: mmann78 () netscape net
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 08:38:30 -0400 (EDT)
Just let me know if you want me to keep track of the changed "first field of a protocol filter" for release note purposes. Per bug 2794, I planned on changing a bunch once I can come up with a consistent naming convention (and then change dissectors to follow that convention). The two biggest areas are "multiple subdissectors of a particular protocol" (ie H.248) and "common collection of protocols" (ie zbee, scsi). My current thought is to have "multiple subdissectors of a particular protocol" keep the dot notation, (ie h248.<subprotocol>.<subprotocol field>) and have the "common collection of protocols" have an underscore inbetween (ie zbee_<protocol>.<subprotocol field>). Comments are welcome. Technically, I don't think ntppriv -> ntp.priv shouldn't need to be noted because "ntppriv" is not a dissector. Those fields are part of a structure within "ntp". To me this was one of the goals of bug 2794 - to ensure the first field always correponds to a dissector filter name. -----Original Message----- From: Joerg Mayer <jmayer () loplof de> To: wireshark-dev <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Sent: Sun, Jul 22, 2012 7:55 am Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] [Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 2794] Questionable display filter fields Should we update the release notes if the first field of a protocol filter changes? In this particular example I've noticed two while looking at about 5 protocols (pap -> prap, ntpptiv -> ntp.priv). Ciao Jörg On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 08:15:43PM -0700, bugzilla-daemon () wireshark org wrote:
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2794 Michael Mann <mmann78 () netscape net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #6362|review_for_checkin? |review_for_checkin- Flags| | --- Comment #32 from Michael Mann <mmann78 () netscape net> 2012-07-21 20:15:42
PDT ---
Comment on attachment 6362 --> https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=6362 Fixing some more of the simpler "questionable" display filters checked in different version of a comparible path to revision 43907 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-bugs mailing list <wireshark-bugs () wireshark org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:wireshark-bugs-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Joerg Mayer <jmayer () loplof de> We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- Re: [Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 2794] Questionable display filter fields mmann78 (Jul 22)
- Re: [Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 2794] Questionable display filter fields Maynard, Chris (Jul 24)