Jeff, Martin -
Martin - thanks for your suggestion. I will definitely open a new bug
to track this issue if need be. However, in the meantime, following
Jeff's suggestion, I installed the latest (nightly?) build (
0.99.8-SVN-24191) from the download site.
With the new import, I do not see the extra /proto element anymore
but I noticed several field elements were included directly under
packet. See below for a snippet from my capture file...
packet
proto ... ...
field name=tcp.checksum
field name=tcp.checksum_good /
field name=tcp.checksum_bad /
/field
/proto
field name=data /
field name=data.data ... .../
/packet
#Second packet, third packet..
packet
...
/packet
Is this valid? I tried looking up a schema doc for PDML but no luck?
Is there one available somewhere?
The following comment that I found in the notes for bug 2815 confirms
my doubt...
--- Comment #4 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-01-12 00:39 GMT ---
Change 24069 avoids closing off Data protocol nodes (even though they are
written out as field elements), since field elements are written out as simple
tags.
I don't know if having field elements immediately inside the packet element
(rather than being inside a protocol element) is allowed by the PDML schema..
End Comment
-
Thanks
Prasad
On Jan 25, 2008 3:36 PM, Jeff Morriss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This problem was fixed after 0.99.7 was released. To get the fix you'll
need to either wait for the next release (0.99.8, there's no plan for a
release date that I'm aware of) or use a development version from:
http://www.wireshark.org/download/automated/
As noted in the bug, this problem was fixed in rev 24069 which means you
need to choose a development version higher than that number.
Prasad Shenoy wrote:
Martin -
I should have included the details in my initial email. Sorry about that.
I am using 0.99.7 on Win XP, the latest download from yesterday.
I looked at bug # 2185 and even followed the command line suggestion but
with my own capture file instead of the one attached to the report. The
problem still persists.
What is your advice in this situation?
Thanks
Prasad
On Jan 25, 2008 3:11 PM, Martin Mathieson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I fixed a but matching this description around 2 weeks ago (to fix
reported bug 2185). Could you please test with a later build?
Hope this helps,
Martin
On Jan 25, 2008 7:57 PM, Prasad Shenoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good people -
I am new to this list so I apologize for loose etiquettes, if any.
I would like to report a bug related to Wireshark PDML export
feature. While looking at a .pdml export of a recent capture, I
noticed a tag mismatch for element proto and several
occurrences of this mismatch in a single .pdml file.
Has anyone noticed or run into this before?
Any help and guidance is highly appreciated
Thanks,
Prasad
___
Wireshark-users mailing list
Wireshark-users@wireshark.org mailto:Wireshark-users@wireshark.org
http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-users
___
Wireshark-users mailing list
Wireshark-users@wireshark.org mailto:Wireshark-users@wireshark.org
http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-users
--
Prasad
___
Wireshark-users mailing list
Wireshark-users@wireshark.org
http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-users
___
Wireshark-users mailing list
Wireshark-users@wireshark.org
http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-users
___
Wireshark-users mailing list
Wireshark-users@wireshark.org
http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-users
