On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Michael Mann via Wireshark-dev <[email protected]> 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 say, let's approach this cautiously. There seems to be justification for handling Vendor Specific files in GAS requests and the ANQP Advertisement Protocol and Public Action fields, but those are somewhat eclectic it seems. That is, it is not clear to me how to unify them at the moment. -- Regards, Richard Sharpe (何以解憂？唯有杜康。--曹操) ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
