On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, Ulf Lamping wrote:
> Jaap Keuter wrote:
> > Hi list,
> >
> > Bug 813 states: "The frame size is properly labeled in the first
> > line of output. On line 6 of output the frame length is improperly being
> > labeled as 'Packet Length'. Obviously this is a trivial issue, but since
> > ethereal tries to be very strict in it's description of a frame, it is
> > clearly inaccurate to say a packet is the same thing as a frame."
> >
> > Sounds reasonable, although we might want to keep "frame.pkt_len" around
> > as an alias for "frame.frm_len".
> >
> > See also the related issue discussed in
> > http://www.ethereal.com/lists/ethereal-dev/200212/msg00077.html
> >
> >
> There was a discussion some time ago (two years or even more?), if the
> term frame or packet should be used as both were used throughout the GUI
> at that time interchangeably.
>
> The term to use here should be packet as it's the right term.
>
> We didn't changed the frame dissector, as some people noted that this
> would change a lot of their filter strings.
>
> So switching from pkt_len to frm_len is probably the wrong way to go.
IMHO, it's always good to push for univocity. Even though history has been
different it sometimes good to cut that away and make (incompatible)
changes. Of course one has to honor history, as you stated. Therefore
pkt_len should stay, as a hidden fiedld, for use in filter etc.
I would even go further and propose the frame dissector to use the
commtech lingo 'octets' i.s.o. 'bytes', but that probably won't do down
with a lot of people.
Thanx,
Jaap
