Re: How can Wireshark improve

[Guy Harris <guy () alum mit edu>]

On Apr 25, 2014, at 10:02 AM, ronnie sahlberg <ronniesahlberg () gmail com> wrote:

> Yes.  I think in most cases you want to split packet relations up into
> two buckets :
> "packets are related because they form a request/reply (and or cancel) pair"
> and
> "packets are related for some other reason".
>
> We could fix this by changing all request/response fields to a new
> FT_REQUEST_REPONSE type.

"Request/response fields" in the sense of "fields used to match requests and responses" (such as ONC RPC XIDs), or 
"request/response fields" in the sense of "for a {request,response}, the frame number of the corresponding 
{response,request}"?  If the latter, presumably you mean using FT_REQUEST_RESPONSE (or perhaps FT_MATCHING_REQUEST and 
FT_MATCHING_RESPONSE) rather than FT_FRAMENUM.

___________________________________________________________________________
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