Hi,
As you may have noted Tomas Kukosa and I are trying to improve ans2wrs to make it possible to
process asn1 files unchanged to make it esaier to maintain and update asn1 based dissectorsa and
Of course to create new ones.
The BER dissectors will also be changed to use the "field based"(?),method (-X option) to produce less code.
Tomas has also tried to solve the problem with tagged types (-T option). It should also be easier
to produce a single dissector from multiple asn1 files (see GSM MAP).
I guess the only reason to change existing stuff is if it produces less code, make future updates less
difficult or makes the relation ships easier to understand. For the TELCO stuff at least there is
relativly frequent updates to the protocols which makes that atractive(MAP CAMEL INAP etc).
The only argument I have regarding FTBP is that "FTBP" doesn't say much of what it does or belongs,
where as if it was part of X.420 that would be clearer.
Unfortunatly I think that the dissector does not yet compile with unchanged asn1 code but that may change.
But the question extends to X.509x is there a good reason to have them splitted or should it
All be in one X.509 dissector? I tested X.509 unchanged as well but there is still problems with asn2wrs
To sort out.
If you could try to recompile them (unchanged) with -X and -T option and report anny problems that'd
help things along.
Help with the OSI stuff would also be apriciated.
Regards
Anders
-----Original Message-----
From: wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Graeme Lunt
Sent: den 21 juni 2007 16:20
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Fwd: [PATCH] FTBP: ContentsTypeParameterandRelationship are OPTIONAL
Hi,
On 21/06/07, Stig Bjørlykke <stig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2007/6/14, Anders Broman <a.broman@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > I there a reason why this is a separate dissector and not included
> > in X.420 as it seems to belong in the same set of asn1 files?
>
> I don't know. This dissectors where made by Graeme Lunt, maybe he had a reason?
Yes. It was me. Guilty as charged.
I made it a separate dissector following the example of the x509* dissectors.
However, if it is beneficial to move it to x420 (which is very
straight-forward) I will happily do so. Let me know.
Graeme
_______________________________________________
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
