It has been committed in rev21295. Thanks.
Regards, Sebastien Tandel Sake Blok wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
