I asked around internally and as a customer of AudioCodes we still use that dissector.
Michael Lum (michael.lum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) | STAR SOLUTIONS | Principal Software Engineer
4600 Jacombs Road, Richmond BC, Canada V6V 3B1 | +1.604.303.2315
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joerg Mayer
> Sent: December 18, 2013 10:48 AM
> To: Developer support list for Wireshark
> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Thoughts on disabling an old dissector
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 01:33:00PM -0500, Evan Huus wrote:
> > This was originally filed as bug 9569. The situation is
> sufficiently
> > unusual that I really don't know what the best solution is, so I
> > figured I'd ask for general comments from the list. The company who
> > created and used the TPNCP protocol (and submitted the
> packet-tpncp.c
> > dissector) wants to reuse that name for a new, different
> protocol and
> > are asking us to disable the old dissector to avoid
> conflicts. The bug
> > has more detail.
> >
> > https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9569
>
> I just added the following to the bug:
> """
> My preferred solution would be to keep the old protocol as
> version 1, add the new protocol as version 2 into the same
> dissector and add a preference to select which version to
> use (with a default of 2). It doesn't have to be 1 or 2 of course.
> """
>
> Ciao
> Jörg
> --
> Joerg Mayer
> <jmayer@xxxxxxxxx>
> We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just
> stuff that works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead
> of technology.
> ______________________________________________________________
> _____________
> Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>
> mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
