Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: Checksum filterable fields
From: Christopher Maynard <Christopher.Maynard () gtech com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 19:36:10 +0000 (UTC)
<mmann78@...> writes:
Perhaps all checksum validations could be an enumeration of "-1" (or "2"?) - unknown/disabled "0" - good "1" - bad
The TCP dissector does something similar for the window scaling factor. If the 3-way handshake isn't captured, then the scaling factor is unknown and set to -1. So, there is some precedence at indicating unknown values using -1, and if changes are to be made, then -1 would be my vote.
If we're already going to take a hit with changed display filter names in
the name of consistency, why not go all the way? I like consistency, so it's fine by me. Just my 2 cents though. Removing the bad_checksums does have at least 1 drawback though, and that's that several of them are used in default coloring rules, so if they're removed, users will likely end up with several warnings of the form: Warn Could not compile color filter "Checksum Errors" from saved filters: "<protocol>.checksum_bad" is neither a field nor a protocol name. ___________________________________________________________________________ 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:
- Checksum filterable fields mmann78 (Jun 27)
- Re: Checksum filterable fields Christopher Maynard (Jun 27)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Checksum filterable fields mmann78 (Jun 27)
- Re: Checksum filterable fields Christopher Maynard (Jun 27)
- Re: Checksum filterable fields Christopher Maynard (Jun 27)
- Re: Checksum filterable fields Christopher Maynard (Jun 27)
- Re: Checksum filterable fields mmann78 (Jun 27)