It has been committed in rev21295. Thanks.
Regards,
Sebastien Tandel
Sake Blok wrote:
> Hi Sebastien,
>
>
>> seems good :)
>>
>
> :)
>
>
>> Last doubt anyway, your msg 'maybe caused etc...' seems a lot of
>> explanation for me at the place you've put it. What do you think of the
>> same message in the following subtree (sister node of tcp.bad_cksum and
>> tcp.good_cksum) or in the expert item?
>>
>
> OK, I dropped the "maybe..." stuff and kept the reference to the RFC. It
> now shows "Checksum: 0xffff [should be 0x0000 (see RFC 1624)]" in the
> packet-detail pane and generates an expert warning: "TCP Checksum 0xffff
> instead of 0x0000 (see RFC 1624)"
>
> Does that look good to you too?
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Sake
>
> PS patch #3 attached on bugzilla :)
> _______________________________________________
> Wireshark-dev mailing list
> Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
>
