Anders Broman <a.broman@...> writes: > > Should we use ENC_NA here too to prevent confusion? > My preference is the opposite use ENC_BIG_ENDIAN as that is the > "natural" encoding for the > protocol and ENC_BIG_ENDIAN is less confusing in my opinion.
For what it's worth, I agree with Anders here. I tend to think of the endian as being associated more with the protocol than with each individual field, so I would prefer a consistent BIG (or LITTLE as the case may be) endian used throughout. I think this also has other potential advantages, e.g., if a multi-byte field is incorrectly coded as a 1-byte field then later fixed, or if a single-byte field is later expanded to a multi-byte field through a protocol update, the endianness won't have to be changed from ENC_NA to ENC_[BIG|LITTLE]_ENDIAN. And of course, the fact that ENC_NA is the same as ENC_BIG_ENDIAN only introduces more potential problems for little-endian protocols. - Chris ___________________________________________________________________________ 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
