Re: Undissected reserved fields

[Evan Huus <eapache () gmail com>]

Should Wireshark have an internal _ws.reserved FT_BYTES field and a
proto_tree_add_reserved(tvb, offset, len) API?

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Jeff Morriss <jeff.morriss.ws () gmail com> wrote:
> +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
___________________________________________________________________________
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