Ulf Lamping wrote: > So if we want to group protocols, we should group (at least) most protocols, > to have the protocol list length dastically reduced.
True. This could be a first step, though. (I have to admit I was amazed there were 21 protocols--and that's only those with preferences--in the SS7 category. I think there were 3 or 4 when I wrote the M2PA dissector, oh, wow, was it almost 6 years ago? Anyway, taking 21 out of the list isn't a bad start.) > Maybe the current Protocol Family overview > http://wiki.wireshark.org/ProtocolReference could work as a guideline to sort > protocols into such groups. Maybe, though I'd leave the categorization to those who really know the protocols in question. In fact I think SS7 is an easy example here because it's a simple, identifiable thing that encompasses quite a few protocols while not being overly broad. I'd guess the others are more complicated. > P.P.S: Will the packet tree context "Protocol Preferences ..." still work > with this? This feature is pretty useful! Didn't try it but I _think_ the checkin comment says it should work. _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
