Nicolas Williams wrote: >On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 02:57:21PM -0700, Darren.Reed at Sun.COM wrote: > > >>Agreed. And I'd go further and say that if we're adding a new >>protocol that isn't supported by Wireshark (or isn't likely to be >>unless Sun does the work) then we should be thinking twice >>about that protocol. >> >> > >That's a bit extreme. You can teach Wireshark about lots of application >protocols, such as RPC protocols. Application protocols often aren't >standardized, either at all or until the protocol becomes popular, so >what, we should not develop any new application protocols without first >standardizing them and/or waiting for others to implement them? > >I imagine that you must have meant protocols below the application >layer. Even then, if Wireshark had no, say, RDDP dissector does that >reflect poorly on RDDP? Or does it nothing of note about RDDP? (IMO, >the latter.) Surely Sun can lead rather than trail, no? > >
Wireshark has protocol dissectors and file input formats supported that I've never heard of through commuity input and interest. The line I'm drawing from that is that if there is relatively no interest or use of a protocol outside of Sun then what are we doing it for? Bear in mind that most of the protocols we implement or support, these days, should be coming from IETF, etc, so it is highly likely that others will want them too. Darren (dragging the thread of coversation well and truely off topic)
