On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 02:06:38PM -0400, James Carlson wrote: > Nicolas Williams writes: > > I'd say: EOF snoop, ask for funding to add to Wireshark any dissector > > functionality that is in snoop but not in Wireshark, and require that > > future projects that would have had to update snoop to update Wireshark > > instead. > > I think that's an excellent answer. It's just not the one on the > table at the moment, and there's no clear indication that we'll ever > get there. The people who would presumably do that work haven't > committed any resources to it. > > > If funding to update Wireshark with snoop functionality never shows up, > > oh well. > > And what of current and future projects that require decode support? > "Oh, well" to them, too?
No, they get to contribute Wireshark support. It's the existing functionality in snoop but not in Wireshark that we'd be saying "oh well" about. > At one point, I was almost convinced that we had some rough consensus > that building a system was a shared goal. I'm no longer so sure, as > projects like this look much more like "mere accumulation" than any > sort of intentionally planned effort. I think you misunderstood what I wrote. Now, to a degree, yes, orphaning some protocol dissection support (if funding never shows up) is less than "building a system." But the flip side is holding the system hostage to funding that may never show up. Wireshark is *far* superior to snoop, so not including Wireshark if noone will commit to making it a strict superset of snoop would also be less than "building a system." Nico --
