Hi Evan, Hmm, now that's an interesting dilemma. Couldn't we rename the old dissector to something like "tpncp_old", "tpncpv1", or "tpncp_legacy"?
That said, it'd probably be a disservice to completely remove a dissector that folks are probably using to dissect "legacy" TPNCP packets in old trace files. Tyson. 2013/12/18 Evan Huus <[email protected]> > This was originally filed as bug 9569. The situation is sufficiently > unusual that I really don't know what the best solution is, so I > figured I'd ask for general comments from the list. The company who > created and used the TPNCP protocol (and submitted the packet-tpncp.c > dissector) wants to reuse that name for a new, different protocol and > are asking us to disable the old dissector to avoid conflicts. The bug > has more detail. > > https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9569 > > Thoughts? > ___________________________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Fight Internet Censorship! http://www.eff.org http://vmlemon.wordpress.com | Twitter/FriendFeed/Skype: vmlemon | 00447934365844
___________________________________________________________________________ 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
