Bart Smaalders wrote: > Bill Sommerfeld wrote: > >> On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 14:14 -0700, Bart Smaalders wrote: >> >>> I'm planning on maintaining Wireshark in the sfw consolidation by >>> keeping it up-to-date with the community releases. I do not currently >>> plan on removing snoop from ON. If those who currently maintain >>> snoop wish to redirect their efforts to making sure that wireshark >>> protocol support is a proper superset of that in snoop and then EOF >>> snoop, that's fine w/ me. Apparently, snoop has been placed in >>> sustaining mode already. If no resources are available to do even >>> that much, leaving snoop alone and declared Obsolete certainly won't >>> set any precedents; much of our userland code is defacto in the same >>> state. >> >> >> PSARC and the ON cteam have operated for some time with a general >> architectural principle that our observability tools (snoop, truss, >> dtrace, pfiles, etc.,) ought to be able to observe what our >> implementation does and thus projects which add new artifacts ought to >> extend these tools accordingly. >> >> Do you believe this principle is in error? If not, how should we >> instruct project teams to let us deliver this system property via >> wireshark? >> >> >> >> > > I would suggest the following: > > 1) project teams introducing new network protocols should be > contributing these changes back to the wireshark project. > > 2) failing this, teams could enhance our copy of wireshark with > a new plug-in. I would much prefer 1) above, as it's simpler and > allows users using other OSes to observe traffic generated on Solaris > more completely.
+1 on option (1). Darren
