What about
Time since reference or first frame: 0.000000000 seconds
^^^^^
versus
Time delta from previous packet: 0.000000000 seconds
^^^^^^
Just wondering...
Best regards
Michael
On Jan 6, 2007, at 4:08 AM, Stephen Fisher wrote:
>
> Can we get a consensus on whether or not to make the change
> suggested in
> bug #813 so we can close it out? :) I'm leaning toward making the
> change, but that would mean also changing the display filter that
> people
> are used to.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> In a sample output from tethereal on a debian box which corresponds to
> what I see in ethereal on my XP box. The frame size is properly
> labeled
> in the first line of output. On line 6 of output the frame length is
> improperly being labeled as Packet Length:. Obviously this is a
> trivial
> issue, but since ethereal tries to be very strict in it's
> description of
> a frame, it is clearly inaccurate to say a packet is the same thing
> as a
> frame. Hope this isn't too annoying a thing to point out.
>
> 1 Frame 1 (60 bytes on wire, 60 bytes captured)
> Arrival Time: Mar 13, 2006 14:59:10.977241000
> Time delta from previous packet: 0.000000000 seconds
> Time since reference or first frame: 0.000000000 seconds
> Frame Number: 1
> Packet Length: 60 bytes
> Capture Length: 60 bytes
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
>
>
> Thanks,
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wireshark-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
_______________________________________________
Wireshark-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
