On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Richard Sharpe <realrichardsha...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Michael Mann via Wireshark-dev > <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> wrote: > > See https://code.wireshark.org/review/23065 > > > > It could probably use some review for "naming". I'm not familiar enough > > with the dissector to know if fields/dissector table name makes sense. > > > > In regards to not already having a dissector table, not all developers > think > > about it, especially if there is only a case or two. Then a situation > like > > yours comes along, and it gets changed. It also looks like "public > fields" > > may need its own dissector table for vendor specific functionality too. > > I would love to give this some thought, and may do, but the damn > IEEE802.11 2012 spec is 2600+ pages long! > > There is now ieee802.11-2016 spec with now 3400+ pages long.. ;-) Thanks Michael for the patch (push a minor fix to fix typo) > -- > Regards, > Richard Sharpe > (何以解憂？唯有杜康。--曹操) > ____________________________________________________________ > _______________ > Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> > Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev > Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev > mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject= > unsubscribe >
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
