Wireshark mailing list archives
Introducing an FT_OUI type, should it be an integer or bytes?
From: Richard Sharpe <realrichardsharpe () gmail com>
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 16:18:12 -0700
Hi folks, I have a change up for review that introduces a new type, FT_OUI. It works. However, the big question is that it changes the current practice from the OUI being an INT24 to being BYTES. This breaks backward compatibility I imagine. Is this a big issue? -- Regards, Richard Sharpe (何以解憂?唯有杜康。--曹操) ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- Introducing an FT_OUI type, should it be an integer or bytes? Richard Sharpe (Aug 19)
- Re: Introducing an FT_OUI type, should it be an integer or bytes? Guy Harris (Aug 19)
- Re: Introducing an FT_OUI type, should it be an integer or bytes? Guy Harris (Aug 19)
- Re: Introducing an FT_OUI type, should it be an integer or bytes? Guy Harris (Aug 19)