On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Michael Mann via Wireshark-dev
<wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> See https://code.wireshark.org/review/23065
>
> It could probably use some review for "naming". I'm not familiar enough
> with the dissector to know if fields/dissector table name makes sense.
>
> In regards to not already having a dissector table, not all developers think
> about it, especially if there is only a case or two. Then a situation like
> yours comes along, and it gets changed. It also looks like "public fields"
> may need its own dissector table for vendor specific functionality too.
I would love to give this some thought, and may do, but the damn
IEEE802.11 2012 spec is 2600+ pages long!
--
Regards,
Richard Sharpe
(何以解憂？唯有杜康。--曹操)
