https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6854
--- Comment #3 from Bill Meier <wmeier@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2012-03-19 09:14:41 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Created attachment 7900 [details]
> Capture demonstrating problem
>
> I hope this helps.
Yes ... (Thanks)
So far, based on your comments, the code and the reference manual I've found a
number of problems related to the confusion about bit numbering and also
related to the display of "value names" for certain bit-fields.
I think I'll need to do a complete review of the field definitions and of the
code.
Re:
"I'm a bit hesitant to open this bug, because it seems unlikely this would
have
gone unnoticed so long; but I've triple-checked the IBM docs and it really
appears the tn3270 sub-dissector is wrong."
It would seem that maybe this dissector isn't used much... !
Just for my curiosity, is TN3270 still used much in the wild ?
What is your need for Wireshark TN3270 dissection ?
(Were you using Wireshark to diagnose a TN3270 issue ?)
(Oh: Microfocus... Cobol... Rumba... ....)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are watching all bug changes.
