Re: What ftypes are "compatible" enough for duplicate fields?

[Hadriel Kaplan <hadriel.kaplan () oracle com>]

Also, FT_IPv4 and FT_IPv6 are frequently in duplicate fields.  Should they be/not-be?  Display filter 
input/verification might have issues with it, but it seems logical to have generic "foo.src"/"foo.dst"/etc. fields of 
both types.

-hadriel


On Feb 21, 2014, at 2:43 PM, Hadriel Kaplan <hadriel.kaplan () oracle com> wrote:

> I agree.
>
> A different question though is why FT_UINT64 isn't in the same group as the other FT_UINT* ones. (And of course 
> FT_INT64 in FT_INT*)
>
> Also, what about FT_NONE?  Lots of current duplicate fields have one of the duplicates as FT_NONE - why I don't know, 
> but I don't think that breaks filtering input. (though I'm not positive about that)
>
> -hadriel
>
>
> On Feb 21, 2014, at 2:15 PM, Guy Harris <guy () alum mit edu> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 21, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Hadriel Kaplan <hadriel.kaplan () oracle com> wrote:
> >
> > > So this then:
> > > - FT_INT8, FT_INT16, FT_INT24 and FT_INT32
> > > - FT_UINT8, FT_UINT16, FT_UINT24, FT_UINT32, FT_IPXNET and FT_FRAMENUM
> >
> > I'd be tempted to consider FT_IPXNET and FT_FRAMENUM to be *sui generis*; they might be displayed as unsigned 
> > integers, but, unlike FT_UINTn, where they're just unsigned integers of different sizes, FT_IPXNET is an IPX network 
> > number and FT_FRAMENUM is a frame number, so I'm not sure it makes sense to have, for example, a field that's 
> > sometimes an integer from the packet and sometimes a frame number.
> >
> > > - FT_UINT64 and FT_EUI64
> >
> > Same there - an EUI-64 is a specific type of value.
> >
> > > - FT_BYTES, FT_UINT_BYTES, FT_AX25, FT_ETHER, FT_VINES, FT_OID and FT_REL_OID
> >
> > And same here - I'd go for
> >
> >      - FT_BYTES and FT_UINT_BYTES
> >      - FT_AX25 (this is an AX.25 address, and is unlikely to be anything else)
> >      - FT_ETHER (MAC-48, and unlikely to be anything else)
> >      - FT_VINES (Vines address)
> >      - FT_OID and FT_REL_OID (I'm guessing that a given OID could be represented either way; if not, maybe they 
> > should be separate)
> >
> > > - FT_ABSOLUTE_TIME and FT_RELATIVE_TIME
> >
> > Absolute times are time stamps; relative times are "n seconds from now"-type values.  I'd split them as well.
> >
> > ___________________________________________________________________________
> > 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

___________________________________________________________________________
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