Re: Transport name resolution considered harmful?

[Jakub Zawadzki <darkjames-ws () darkjames pl>]

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:24:02AM -0700, Guy Harris wrote:
> Note that we have dissectors for all of those (and that the names aren't the protocol names, e.g. "domain" rather 
> than "DNS", "microsoft-ds" rather than "SMB", "router" rather than "RIP").  
> The issues are probably mostly with the protocols not used enough to have Wireshark dissectors.
>
> Perhaps we should, instead, have our own table of port numbers->protocol names.

A little off-topic:
  We could implement it as value_string and finally fix bug #594 o/
___________________________________________________________________________
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