Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: FT_BYTES hf with len==0
From: Guy Harris <guy () alum mit edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 12:13:39 -0800
On Dec 16, 2013, at 8:48 AM, Martin Kaiser <lists () kaiser cx> wrote:
The idea would be to allow filtering for this element although it has no value (it's just there).
Do you mean "this is a byte array field that has a length that can range from 0 to {some maximum value}", so that the field might have some value in some packets, or do you mean "I just want to add a flag to a packet, carrying one bit's worth of information by its presence or absence"? In the latter case, a (computed) FT_NONE or FT_BOOLEAN field would be more appropriate than an FT_BYTES field. (Or perhaps what you really want is an expert info item.) ___________________________________________________________________________ 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:
- FT_BYTES hf with len==0 Martin Kaiser (Dec 16)
- Re: FT_BYTES hf with len==0 Jakub Zawadzki (Dec 16)
- Re: FT_BYTES hf with len==0 Martin Kaiser (Dec 18)
- Re: FT_BYTES hf with len==0 Martin Kaiser (Dec 20)
- Re: FT_BYTES hf with len==0 Martin Kaiser (Dec 20)
- Re: FT_BYTES hf with len==0 Martin Kaiser (Dec 18)
- Re: FT_BYTES hf with len==0 Guy Harris (Dec 18)
- Re: FT_BYTES hf with len==0 Jakub Zawadzki (Dec 16)
- Re: FT_BYTES hf with len==0 Guy Harris (Dec 16)
- Re: FT_BYTES hf with len==0 Martin Kaiser (Dec 18)