Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Network Sorcery and protocol documentation
From: "Maynard, Chris" <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 10:04:13 -0500
Ah, I think I know what happened.  I started to actually reply to the 0.99.7 release thread but was interrupted and saved a draft.  Later, I forgot about the draft and replied again.  Still later, I realized I had a draft and simply deleted the content and used that to start the Network Sorcery thread, or so I thought, not realizing what the real impact was.  Sorry for the confusion and thanks for bringing that to my attention.  I'll be sure not to do that again.  Crap. :(

________________________________

From: [email protected] on behalf of Jeff Morriss
Sent: Fri 11/9/2007 9:48 AM
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Network Sorcery and protocol documentation




So you hit "compose new mail" (or its equivalent) to send that email?

That's strange because your first email about this Network Sorcery
thread contains:

 > References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
        <[email protected]>

which are the Message-IDs for a few of the messages in the "0.99.7
release?" thread.  Usually mail clients only include References: for
other emails if you "Reply" to messages in that thread.

Maynard, Chris wrote:
> I have no idea what you're talking about here.  This thread had nothing to do with the 0.99.7 release.  I started it as a new thread that simply discusses the Network Sorcery site and ways to possibly improve documentation or at least make folks aware of the site, since I find it useful and maybe others would too.
> 
> - Chris
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: [email protected] on behalf of Jeff Morriss
> Sent: Fri 11/9/2007 9:10 AM
> To: Developer support list for Wireshark
> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Network Sorcery and protocol documentation
>
>
>
>
>
> Maynard, Chris wrote:
>> Recently having submitted a protocol dissector and written a wiki page for it, I was reminded of a very handy web site for protocol documentation that I reference quite often, namely http://www.networksorcery.com/enp/Protocol.htm.  I think the folks at Network Sorcery did a really nice job at presenting the protocols.  The protocols are alphabetized so they're easy to find, they use a common format for describing them, protocols cross-reference each other where applicable, links to relevant RFC's are provided, related SNMP MIBs are mentioned, etc., etc.
>>
>> Anyway, I personally think the format is somewhat superior to the current wireshark wiki pages for protocol descriptions and would like to see Wireshark protocol pages mimic theirs.  Is it possible to mirror that site's content on Wireshark's site?  And then as we add new protocols, we could use a similar format?  At the very least, provide a link to it from Wireshark?
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> One thought: please don't Reply to an email on one topic and then change
> the subject to something completely different.  It makes it hard for
> those of us who read mail in threads (by conversation as Google would
> say it) because your new-subject email shows up as a reply to, in this
> case, the thread about the 0.99.7 release.
> _______________________________________________





-----------------------------------------
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the
sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, retention,
distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the
recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all
copies of this message. Also, email is susceptible to data
corruption, interception, tampering, unauthorized amendment and
viruses. We only send and receive emails on the basis that we are
not liable for any such corruption, interception, tampering,
amendment or viruses or any consequence thereof.

<<winmail.dat>>