Comment # 5
on bug 9160
from Evan Huus
Hi Peter, I've finally had a chance to review the patch (sorry for the delay)
and I have a few thoughts:
- If there is no reliable way to determine from the packet whether or not this
extension is present, I think it make sense to add it as a preference on the
existing protocol rather than registering it as a separate but nearly identical
protocol?
- There is no need to use proto_tree_add_uint for tlvtype and tlvlength since
they are extracted unmodified from the packet - just use proto_tree_add_item.
- Please don't use proto_tree_add_text except for building subtrees. The "Data"
entry should probably be of type FT_BYTES, and the "Malformed TLV" entry should
probably be an expert info field instead.
Thanks,
Evan
You are receiving this mail because:
- You are watching all bug changes.
