Re: Undissected reserved fields

[mmann78 () netscape net]

What I've done is usually setup a FT_UINT32 and/or a FT_BYTES (with different abbreviations) and that's usually 
inclusive enough (maybe if I'm feeling generous setup a FT_UINT8 though FT_UINT32).  If dissectors only have FT_UINT8 
"reserved" fields, then I just add that.  But I rarely look to give each reserved field a unique name.
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Graham Bloice <graham.bloice () trihedral com>
To: Developer support list for Wireshark <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Sent: Fri, Feb 27, 2015 1:43 pm
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Undissected reserved fields


    
     
    
    
How do we handle the case where a protocol has many reserved fields, do they each need an hf and a name?    
   
   
   
    
   
--    
   
    
     
Graham Bloice     
    
   
   
 
 

___________________________________________________________________________
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