Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Checksum filterable fields
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 16:13:35 -0400 (EDT)
I logged something into Bugzilla for now (https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8859) if anyone has any other thoughts.  I have too many other half-completed "ideas" resulting in too many changed files to tackle this now in one swoop. 
As for the coloring rule, thanks for the heads up, but I think I should be able to update them accordingly, possibly using the "expert info" (display) filter instead of the pure dissector display filter.
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Maynard <[email protected]>
To: wireshark-dev <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, Jun 27, 2013 3:38 pm
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Checksum filterable fields

 <[email protected]> writes:

> Perhaps all checksum validations could be an enumeration of 
> "-1" (or "2"?) - unknown/disabled
> "0" - good
> "1" - bad

The TCP dissector does something similar for the window scaling factor.  If
the 3-way handshake isn't captured, then the scaling factor is unknown and
set to -1.  So, there is some precedence at indicating unknown values using
-1, and if changes are to be made, then -1 would be my vote.

> If we're already going to take a hit with changed display filter names in
the name of consistency, why not go all the way?

I like consistency, so it's fine by me.  Just my 2 cents though.

Removing the bad_checksums does have at least 1 drawback though, and that's
that several of them are used in default coloring rules, so if they're
removed, users will likely end up with several warnings of the form:

Warn Could not compile color filter "Checksum Errors" from saved filters:
"<protocol>.checksum_bad" is neither a field nor a protocol name.

Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe