On Sep 2, 2012, at 8:50 AM, Jaap Keuter wrote:
> On 08/14/2012 06:57 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 14, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Graham Bloice wrote:
>>
>>> I did wonder, but someone asked for it.
>>
>> OK, I've asked him in his ask.wireshark.org question why he wants to do that.
>
> Well, was his answer[1] sufficient?
The answer was
> My plugin postdissector dissects certain proprietary suboption fields found
> under TCP options, they used to be displayed as "Unknown". Currently I'm just
> hiding the associated text node by changing it to a hidden node, but I wanted
> to know if it was possible to remove the redundant text node instead, just in
> case.
I'm not sure what "suboption fields" means here.
If he means "options", then, well, he shouldn't be doing that:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/tcp-parameters/tcp-parameters.xml
has no "reserved for vendor proprietary hacks" values, and
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3692
says that those values might not be a good idea. In that case, he should just
hack up the TCP dissector to support the option in question; perhaps that
requirement would be sufficient punishment to discourage that sort of behavior.
If he means "suboptions", *and* the option for which he's inserted suboptions
is one that has an explicit mechanism for adding vendor-specified options, then
we should perhaps add a dissector table for those options so he can plug in his
dissector. (If it has no such mechanism, see previous paragraph.)
I'll ask which TCP option he's adding suboptions to.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]>
Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
