1 Feb 2008 09:07
[Bug 2226] Mismatching </proto> element in a PDML explort
<bugzilla-daemon <at> wireshark.org>
2008-02-01 08:07:53 GMT
2008-02-01 08:07:53 GMT
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2226 --- Comment #7 from Rene Baumann <Rene.Baumann <at> speggnaggen.de> 2008-02-01 08:07:50 GMT --- >Any changes may upset someone whose application depends upon the status quo. >We could: > >- tighten up the proto.h functions to not allow fields to be added outside of >protocol trees, and fix violations (although I expect the checking could only >take place at run-time, so it may take a while to pick them all up). I did >have a go at adding a second (protocol) tree to the function >decode_tcp_ports(). If it failed to find a dissector to call, it would use the >2nd (existing protocol) tree to add the data field inside the existing >protocol. This worked OK for TCP iteself and msproxy, but not easily for the >HTTP dissector. > >- make the 'data' dissector print as a protocol instead of as a field. This >would help a lot. > First the not well-formed output should be fixed. Otherwise it doesnt make sense to create a output with pdml. Then the best idea think is to define a DTD together. This DTD should show how it works and gives a good fundament. Then everbody knows how to work with the output correctly. Especially I think of this specification: http://gd.tuwien.ac.at/.vhost/analyzer.polito.it/30alpha/docs/dissectors/PDMLSpec.htm I wrote a first DTD and attached it to this bug.(Continue reading)
RSS Feed