https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2706
--- Comment #2 from Sake <sake@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-07-13 02:14:10 PDT ---
>From epan/dissectors/packet-cfm.c:
case TEST_TLV:
/* There is a discrepancy in the recommendation ITU-T Y.1731
* where the test pattern type may or may not be included in
* the TLV length. Going to assume that it is included in the
* length which corresponds with the typical format for TLV's
* until the recommendation is more clear in this regard. */
Can you point us to the documentation where you found the recommendation to
*not* include the pattern type field in the field length?
If the protocol specification is unclear, there could be implementations with
different behavior. This would mean that fixing this issue now for the
tracefile that you supplied, might break dissection of packets from other
implementations.
The above statement could also mean that the developer that implemented CFM
support in Wireshark was not sure which way to choose ;-)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
