My 2 cents: > On Jul 5, 2015, at 11:32 PM, Guy Harris <g...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > "Heuristic Protocol" or "Heuristic Dissector”?
While “Dissector” makes more sense to me personally, do most users/IT-folks understand what a “Dissector” is? I think we’ve been conditioned to think of that word because we look at the code. But I could easily be wrong about that. > Should we have a single table, listing protocols, with up to two checkboxes, > one for the "identifier-based" dissector (if any; leave the checkbox out if > none) and one for the heuristic dissector (if any; leave the checkbox out if > none)? I think a single table will be more confusing since several protocols have heuristic dissectors for more than one underlying transport/protocol type. Of course we could just enable/disable a protocol’s heuristics for all underlying transports as all-onf/off... but I’m just sure someone will have some reasonable use case for enabling heuristics for some protocol over TCP but not UDP or vice-versa, and then we’d be back to creating a preference for that protocol to do so. In fact I’d probably be one of those people: if our RTP heuristic dissector supported TCP (for RFC 4571), I’d want it kept off on TCP always, but I used to have it turned on for UDP all the time in my previous job. -hadriel ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
