On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Michael Mann via Wireshark-dev <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> wrote: > See https://code.wireshark.org/review/23065 > > It could probably use some review for "naming". I'm not familiar enough > with the dissector to know if fields/dissector table name makes sense. > > In regards to not already having a dissector table, not all developers think > about it, especially if there is only a case or two. Then a situation like > yours comes along, and it gets changed. It also looks like "public fields" > may need its own dissector table for vendor specific functionality too.
I would love to give this some thought, and may do, but the damn IEEE802.11 2012 spec is 2600+ pages long! -- Regards, Richard Sharpe (何以解憂?唯有杜康。--曹操) ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe