> I am writing this to the mailing list to get some opinions if this is
> the right approach for this problem or if it should stay like it is now.
> If I get positive feedback I will try to make dtls use more code from
> the ssl dissector.
The DTLS code was created from a copy of the SSL code some day in the past. It's
true that they share a lot of common code and often changes in one of the files
should be made in the other as well. However the problem with using common
function is, that now the filter names would not have a common prefix any more.
Your code change is showing this, since now when analyzing a DTLS packet some of
the filters would start with "ssl."
While I like the idea of refactoring both SSL and DTLS we should first think
about a common nameing scheme for the filters, so that people using filters will
not be surprised that some packets may not be matched.
--
---> Dirk Jagdmann
----> http://cubic.org/~doj
-----> http://llg.cubic.org
