https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12058
--- Comment #4 from Guy Harris <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Pierre Fortin from comment #2) > (In reply to Michael Mann from comment #1) > > > Isn't that technically correct? Since they aren't validated it's unknown > > whether they are good or bad. Are you expecting a third state of "not > > validated"? > > Why be verbose to this extent?: > true false > good - X > bad - X > when checksum = {good|bad} suffices? That's a good question, given that showing both "good = {yes,no}" and "bad = {no,yes}" is redundant. Perhaps there should be a single, tri-state field with values "good", "bad", and "unverified". -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-bugs mailing list <[email protected]> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
