My 2 cents:
> On Jul 5, 2015, at 11:32 PM, Guy Harris <guy@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> "Heuristic Protocol" or "Heuristic Dissector”?
While “Dissector” makes more sense to me personally, do most users/IT-folks understand what a “Dissector” is? I think we’ve been conditioned to think of that word because we look at the code. But I could easily be wrong about that.
> Should we have a single table, listing protocols, with up to two checkboxes, one for the "identifier-based" dissector (if any; leave the checkbox out if none) and one for the heuristic dissector (if any; leave the checkbox out if none)?
I think a single table will be more confusing since several protocols have heuristic dissectors for more than one underlying transport/protocol type. Of course we could just enable/disable a protocol’s heuristics for all underlying transports as all-onf/off... but I’m just sure someone will have some reasonable use case for enabling heuristics for some protocol over TCP but not UDP or vice-versa, and then we’d be back to creating a preference for that protocol to do so.
In fact I’d probably be one of those people: if our RTP heuristic dissector supported TCP (for RFC 4571), I’d want it kept off on TCP always, but I used to have it turned on for UDP all the time in my previous job.
-hadriel
