Hi,
We have already make some big change for Wireless (remove mgmt on display
filter) and no really a big issue...
About standard for display filter and display filler name, it is
complicated... for USB specification, the standard descriptors is not
really "name" (bXXXId...)
Cheers
On Sun, Jan
I agree that scripts should not rely on such an output. However sometimes
there isn't another option or people just do it anyway. We must consider
that as well.
Talking about Tomasz proposal, I agree that we should follow the standards
as closely as possible. But if that breaks backward compatibili
On Jan 5, 2020, at 8:06 AM, Tomasz Moń wrote:
> In case of the USB Audio descriptor dissection, I would like to change
> the header_field_info name, leaving abbrev as is. Would that still
> cause problems?
It would cause problems for programs that parse TShark -T text (default text)
output (or
On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 4:54 PM Graham Bloice
wrote:
> However, I'm cautious about renaming fields "just because" as this will
> likely break any scripts\workflows folks have that rely on the current field
> names.
In case of the USB Audio descriptor dissection, I would like to change
the header
On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 at 15:42, Tomasz Moń wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have noticed that some USB dissectors do follow the field names as
> defined in USB specification (e.g. standard descriptors), while others
> don't (e.g. USB Audio class descriptors).
>
> Is it generally preferred that Wireshark follow
Hello,
I have noticed that some USB dissectors do follow the field names as
defined in USB specification (e.g. standard descriptors), while others
don't (e.g. USB Audio class descriptors).
Is it generally preferred that Wireshark follows names from the
specification (e.g. bTerminalID) instead of
