Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: What ftypes are "compatible" enough for duplicate fields?
From: Hadriel Kaplan <hadriel.kaplan () oracle com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 15:08:54 -0500
Also, FT_IPv4 and FT_IPv6 are frequently in duplicate fields. Should they be/not-be? Display filter input/verification might have issues with it, but it seems logical to have generic "foo.src"/"foo.dst"/etc. fields of both types. -hadriel On Feb 21, 2014, at 2:43 PM, Hadriel Kaplan <hadriel.kaplan () oracle com> wrote:
I agree. A different question though is why FT_UINT64 isn't in the same group as the other FT_UINT* ones. (And of course FT_INT64 in FT_INT*) Also, what about FT_NONE? Lots of current duplicate fields have one of the duplicates as FT_NONE - why I don't know, but I don't think that breaks filtering input. (though I'm not positive about that) -hadriel On Feb 21, 2014, at 2:15 PM, Guy Harris <guy () alum mit edu> wrote:On Feb 21, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Hadriel Kaplan <hadriel.kaplan () oracle com> wrote:So this then: - FT_INT8, FT_INT16, FT_INT24 and FT_INT32 - FT_UINT8, FT_UINT16, FT_UINT24, FT_UINT32, FT_IPXNET and FT_FRAMENUMI'd be tempted to consider FT_IPXNET and FT_FRAMENUM to be *sui generis*; they might be displayed as unsigned integers, but, unlike FT_UINTn, where they're just unsigned integers of different sizes, FT_IPXNET is an IPX network number and FT_FRAMENUM is a frame number, so I'm not sure it makes sense to have, for example, a field that's sometimes an integer from the packet and sometimes a frame number.- FT_UINT64 and FT_EUI64Same there - an EUI-64 is a specific type of value.- FT_BYTES, FT_UINT_BYTES, FT_AX25, FT_ETHER, FT_VINES, FT_OID and FT_REL_OIDAnd same here - I'd go for - FT_BYTES and FT_UINT_BYTES - FT_AX25 (this is an AX.25 address, and is unlikely to be anything else) - FT_ETHER (MAC-48, and unlikely to be anything else) - FT_VINES (Vines address) - FT_OID and FT_REL_OID (I'm guessing that a given OID could be represented either way; if not, maybe they should be separate)- FT_ABSOLUTE_TIME and FT_RELATIVE_TIMEAbsolute times are time stamps; relative times are "n seconds from now"-type values. I'd split them as well. ___________________________________________________________________________ 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
___________________________________________________________________________ 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
Current thread:
- What ftypes are "compatible" enough for duplicate fields? Hadriel Kaplan (Feb 21)
- Re: What ftypes are "compatible" enough for duplicate fields? Evan Huus (Feb 21)
- Re: What ftypes are "compatible" enough for duplicate fields? Hadriel Kaplan (Feb 21)
- Re: What ftypes are "compatible" enough for duplicate fields? Evan Huus (Feb 21)
- Re: What ftypes are "compatible" enough for duplicate fields? Guy Harris (Feb 21)
- Re: What ftypes are "compatible" enough for duplicate fields? Hadriel Kaplan (Feb 21)
- Re: What ftypes are "compatible" enough for duplicate fields? Hadriel Kaplan (Feb 21)
- Re: What ftypes are "compatible" enough for duplicate fields? Guy Harris (Feb 21)
- Re: What ftypes are "compatible" enough for duplicate fields? Hadriel Kaplan (Feb 21)
- Re: What ftypes are "compatible" enough for duplicate fields? Hadriel Kaplan (Feb 21)
- Re: What ftypes are "compatible" enough for duplicate fields? Guy Harris (Feb 21)
- Re: What ftypes are "compatible" enough for duplicate fields? Hadriel Kaplan (Feb 21)
- Re: What ftypes are "compatible" enough for duplicate fields? Evan Huus (Feb 21)
- Re: What ftypes are "compatible" enough for duplicate fields? Guy Harris (Feb 21)
- Re: What ftypes are "compatible" enough for duplicate fields? Evan Huus (Feb 21)