https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3397
--- Comment #9 from Balint Reczey <balint.reczey@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-19 13:53:47 PDT ---
Hi Artem,
I agree, that dissecting the TDM payload would require a lot of changes but, I
think that it is better to handle the payload as not dissected data. Maybe
eventually someone will need those changes start working on them.
On the other side, I agree, that your patch provided a more readable
representation of the packet data, so if you provide a patch that modifies
the data dissector to _optionally_ show the not dissected data as a hexdump in
Wireshark, too, I would happily check and commit it.
Regards,
Balint
(In reply to comment #8)
> Hi Balint,
> Thanks for committing my patch!
>
> On small note: following existing practice is a good thing, but I would left my
> patch as it is. The reason is simple:
>
> BR> Other dissectors, like Internal TDM over MPLS just leave the data
> BR> undissected, and by doing so they provide valuable information,
> BR> i.e. the dissection did not cover all bytes in the packet.
>
> Actually, I believe that SAToP and CESoPSN dissectors cover all bytes in the
> packet.
>
> Further dissection of SATOP/CESOPSN payload is only _theoretically_ possible.
> This requires radical changes of design of these dissectors towards
> complication. At least, reassembly of TDM data stream should be implemented
> together with dissection of MPLS PW Associated Channel.
>
> Current dissectors do all possible job, and represent TDM payload in the form
> which is more readable than "data" dissector provides. This is convenient for
> me, at least; and I prefer to avoid tshark if wireshark can do the same job ;).
>
> But, anyway, thanks for committing and decision is up to you of course ;)
>
> regards, artem//
>
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
