On Jul 2, 2018, at 10:34 PM, Mike Morrin <morrinmike@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I also played with this concept a few years ago when working with a proprietary aggregation protocol. I am not sure if I still have my prototype code. I seem to remember that features such as filtering were easily broken and difficult to fix.
>
> One idea I had was to NOT give the aggregated packets real packet numbers (in the traditional sense), but give them sub-packet numbers which are displayed as x.y where x is the aggregation packet where the aggregated packet finishes and y is the aggregated sub-packet number. Note that his scheme should be extensible for sub-packets within sub-packets (x.y.z etc).
Is there any need to give them packet numbers at all? The top-level tree items can have frame numbers, but the tree items underneath that need not have one.
