On 9/23/06, Ulf Lamping <ulf.lamping@xxxxxx> wrote:
Graeme Lunt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Attached is a new version of the related information functionality I had
> previously submitted (back in May).
> I thought I would ask for comments before checking it in this time! 8^)
>
:-)
> It adds a new menu item "Related Information" and provides a generic
> mechanism to register related information for:
> * a specific hf_index - register_related_hfid_callback()
> * a range of hf_indexes (e.g. "owned" by a given dissector) -
> register_related_range_callback()
> and
> * a type e.g. FT_OID - register_related_type_callback();
>
Will this be called for all appearances of a specific type regardless of
the dissector / protocol?
In this case it's probably rather useless for most types, so using the
hf_index based registration might work better.
> In addition, a new FI_URL flag has been defined to mark a field as a URL,
> together associated macros - e.g. PROTO_ITEM_SET_URL().
>
I guess this will present the field in the protocol details tree as a
link (similar to "go to frame" fields) to open it in a browser? Sounds
reasonable.
> This patch shows three different "related information" handlers:
> (use the x509-with-logo.cap example capture (packet 2 - Handshake
Protocol:
> Certificate) to view these)
>
> URL:
> The logotypeURI_item has been marked as FI_URL and can be opened in a
> browser (e.g. showing the logo)
> The uniformResourceIdentifier in a GeneralName has been marked as a FI_URL
> (e.g. can be used to download the CRL from the CRLDP)
>
Please give a more general example, I (and probably a lot of other
developers) don't know CRL and CRLDP :-)
> OID:
> All fields of type FT_OID can bring up the Harald Alvestrand web page
(e.g.
> certificatePolicies 2.5.29.32).
> The actual template URL can be configured on the BER preferences page (may
> be moved later). It is a text field (rather than option menu) for those
with
> no Internet connection, or prefer the elibel site.
>
Will this be the right way to go for *every* FT_OID field for *every*
protocol using it? I have serious doubts here.
And showing a "Harald Alvestrand page" for completely unrelated topics
would be very confusing.
I get the feeling that registering related information based on the hf_
might be a better way to go - dropping the field type registration
completely.
I think in the general case that is true, but OIDs are a special case.
Those sites are repositories where they aim to describe every oid
regardless of protocol or useage. So for OIDs I think it makes sense
to always link to those sites, for all OIDs.
