HI,
Yes, you are correct. That’s why I held off pushing a change myself.
We’ll wait and see.
Good luck,
Jaap
> On 28 Dec 2019, at 08:04, Uli Heilmeier wrote:
>
> Hi Jaap,
>
> I’ve set it to IN_PROGRESS as I’m working on a patch. I thought that's what
> the status field was for. ;-)
> Change
Hi Jaap,
I’ve set it to IN_PROGRESS as I’m working on a patch. I thought that's what the
status field was for. ;-)
Change will include support for draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-08 and
draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-15.
Cheers
Uli
> Am 27.12.2019 um 20:29 schrieb Jaap Keuter :
>
> Hi
Hi,
I see that this might be of interest and will proceed to complete the needed
testing and submit to review.
-Anders
Sendt fra min iPhone
> 27. des. 2019 kl. 10:22 skrev Alexis La Goutte :
>
>
> Hi Anders,
>
> It is always interressing to include new RFC on Wireshark
>
> Please push on
Dear Graham and Jaap,
>> On 17 Nov 2019, at 21:15, Jiří Novák wrote:
>>
>> Dear Graham,
>>
>>> Can you update the Wiki page when that occurs?
>>
>> I do my best.
>> BTW what do you expect to read on page about G.729?
>> I imagine (in points):
>> - G.729 is now supported by Wireshark
>> - RTP play
Hi Uli,
You’ve changed the bug to IN_PROGRESS, do you intend to push a change for this?
I’ve got one ready, so if you can’t I can.
Thanks,
Jaap
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list
Archives:https://www.wireshark.o
Hi Anders,
It is always interressing to include new RFC on Wireshark
Please push on upstream (you can look the wiki about help)
Cheers
On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 9:52 PM Anders Reggestad
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have as part of a study of the RFC8364, written a dissection of the PFM
> message from htt
