Hi Sebastien, > seems good :)
:) > Last doubt anyway, your msg 'maybe caused etc...' seems a lot of > explanation for me at the place you've put it. What do you think of the > same message in the following subtree (sister node of tcp.bad_cksum and > tcp.good_cksum) or in the expert item? OK, I dropped the "maybe..." stuff and kept the reference to the RFC. It now shows "Checksum: 0xffff [should be 0x0000 (see RFC 1624)]" in the packet-detail pane and generates an expert warning: "TCP Checksum 0xffff instead of 0x0000 (see RFC 1624)" Does that look good to you too? Cheers, Sake PS patch #3 attached on bugzilla :) _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
