Re: Undissected reserved fields

[Jeff Morriss <jeff.morriss.ws () gmail com>]

+1

On 02/27/15 14:04, mmann78 () netscape net wrote:
> 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?

___________________________________________________________________________
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