The protocol does not exist yet. Neither. I am helping develop this protocol for IEEE 1451.0. I do not represent the IEEE. I am simply volunteering (as others) in one of the working groups (IEEE 1451.0).
Why on earth did I choose to use ASN.1? Because I was asked to provide some form of IDL for the messages, and I found esnacc and omiidl in Linux as a means for translating ASN.1 to IDL and syntax checking it. So then I decided it was worth it to convert our message descriptions to ASN.1 because I could translate them to IDL (per esnacc) and generate a dissector (ASN.1-based) with Wireshark build step "make asn1" On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 7:44 PM Guy Harris <ghar...@sonic.net> wrote: > On Jun 22, 2021, at 6:33 PM, Vincent Randal <vtran...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > We are using PER per the foo example (Simple ASN.1-based dissector). > Wow, I never about all these different encodings. > > > > Maybe we should be using something other than PER? We think we like PER > because the dissected values agree with what we can see in the raw UDP data. > > You should be using whatever encoding the protocol is using. > The protocol does not exist yet. I am helping develop this protocol. Is this a protocol for which you have an ASN.1 specification plus an > indication of the encoding being used, or is this something you're > reverse-engineering? > Neither? I am helping develop this protocol for IEEE 1451.0. I do not represent the IEEE. I am simply volunteering (as others) in one of the working groups (IEEE 1451.0). Why on earth did I choose to use ASN.1? Because I was asked to provide some form of IDL for the messages. I found esnacc and omiidl in Linux as a means for translating ASN.1 to IDL and syntax checking it. So then I decided it was worth it to write our message descriptions in ASN.1 because I could translate them to IDL (per esnacc) and generate dissectors (ASN.1-based) with Wireshark [build step "make asn1"]. And it seems to be working (insofar as we have tested the entire process on several messages) except we currently have one-port-per-message-per-dissector (over 100 new folders in ./epan/dissectors/asn1). We are wasting a lot of UDP ports on a single protocol (again, still under development). Anders' suggestion to use CHOICE in ASN.1 looks like a good suggestion for decoding the first octet. Then we can have a single UDP port handle all messages (or one port for Network Services and another port for Transducer Services). > ___________________________________________________________________________ > 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 >
___________________________________________________________________________ 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
