Re: Should we have "Window size scaling factor: -1 (unknown)" in the packet details, or just leave the scaling factor out?

[Boonie <newsboonie () gmail com>]

Hi Sake,

I'd prefer the second one you proposed as it is both clear and does
contain the value which will be seen in the filter. If you remover it,
users will not understand where the value came from.


--
"Window size scaling factor: -1 (unknown, start of session not captured)"
"Window size scaling factor: -2 (no window scaling used)"
--


Regards,

Dave

2012/4/27 Sake Blok <sake () euronet nl>:
> On 26 apr 2012, at 23:58, <Tim.Poth () bentley com> <Tim.Poth () bentley com> wrote:
>
> > > At least one user was confused by that entry:
> > >
> > >      http://ask.wireshark.org/questions/10466/window-size-scaling-factor-unknown
> > >
> > > Is it useful at all?  If so, how would it be best rewritten so that it doesn't imply anything other than "the 
> > > capture doesn't contain enough information for Wireshark to know the scaling factor", with no implication that this 
> > > is a network problem?
>
> > I like having it there
>
> Me too... but of course I do, as I introduced it :-)
>
> > I don't have a proble with how its worded but would this be clearer?
> > Window size scaling factor: unknown (start of session not captured)
>
> I like that idea. Should we completely drop the output of the field value when it is -1 or -2 and let users figure 
> out the value for themselves when using "Apply as filter"? This would result in:
>
> "Window size scaling factor: unknown, start of session not captured"
> "Window size scaling factor: no window scaling used"
>
> Or would it be better to include the artificial value:
>
> "Window size scaling factor: -1 (unknown, start of session not captured)"
> "Window size scaling factor: -2 (no window scaling used)"
>
> Or maybe like this:
>
> "Window size scaling factor: unknown, start of session not captured (-1)"
> "Window size scaling factor: no window scaling used (-2)"
>
> I tend to like the first option best as it does not confuse the user with a fabricated value. People that want to use 
> this as a filter will find out the value by using any of the  "... as filter" options.
>
> Any objections?
>
> Cheers,
> Sake
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via:    Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users () wireshark org>
> Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
>             mailto:wireshark-users-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users () wireshark org>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
             mailto:wireshark-users-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe