On Apr 25, 2014, at 10:02 AM, ronnie sahlberg <ronniesahlb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes. I think in most cases you want to split packet relations up into
> two buckets :
> "packets are related because they form a request/reply (and or cancel) pair"
> and
> "packets are related for some other reason".
>
> We could fix this by changing all request/response fields to a new
> FT_REQUEST_REPONSE type.
"Request/response fields" in the sense of "fields used to match requests and
responses" (such as ONC RPC XIDs), or "request/response fields" in the sense of
"for a {request,response}, the frame number of the corresponding
{response,request}"? If the latter, presumably you mean using
FT_REQUEST_RESPONSE (or perhaps FT_MATCHING_REQUEST and FT_MATCHING_RESPONSE)
rather than FT_FRAMENUM.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
