Re: Undissected reserved fields

[Guy Harris <guy () alum mit edu>]

On Feb 27, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Jeff Morriss <jeff.morriss.ws () gmail com> wrote:

> My opinion (which I've voiced on this list many times over the past ~10 years) is that such fields SHOULD be 
> dissected.  Even better they should have an Expert Info if they are supposed to be 0 and aren't (Guy had suggested on 
> a bug or somewhere that we should have an API with a name that includes "mbz"--for Must Be Zero--which would add the 
> Expert Info automatically).

It was in the thread that started here:

        https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/201402/msg00131.html

and I suggested both proto_tree_add_spare() (for fields that are spare and *not* required to be zero) and 
proto_tree_add_mbz() (for fields that *are* required to be zero) in

        https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/201402/msg00135.html

Neither of those take an hf_ value as an argument, so they don't clutter the list of filterable fields with a bunch of 
individual values for each set of spare bits; to look for "must be zero but isn't", you'd look for the expert info.
___________________________________________________________________________
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