Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] [Wireshark-commits] rev 39384: /trunk/epan/dissectors/ /trun
Date Index · Thread Index · Other Months · All Mailing Lists
Date Prev · Date Next · Thread Prev · Thread Next
From: Bill Meier <wmeier@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:38:19 -0400
On 10/12/2011 2:20 PM, Bill Meier wrote:

On 10/12/2011 1:42 PM, Guy Harris wrote:

(Paging LTE experts here....)

On Oct 12, 2011, at 8:02 AM, wmeier@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:


http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc/viewvc.cgi?view=rev&revision=39384

User: wmeier
Date: 2011/10/12 08:02 AM

Log:
Fix a benign bug: Use correct proto_tree_add_item() encoding arg.


At least as I read RFC 3095:

UOR-2-TS

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 1 1 0 | TS |
+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+
|T=1| M | SN |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| X | CRC |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

neither the old code nor the new code are correct - the "M" bit is
in the octet after the TS field.

I don't see anything obvious in 3GPP TS 36.323 itself that says the
format is different; does something in a later RFC specify something
different?


Yep: I read the RFC the same way; There's an 'offset++' after the fetch
of ts so I think the code is Ok.




Never mind: Now I see:    :)

From the code:

    /* TODO: octet before large-cid.
       TODO: can't decode this until we know what T is,
             but T is after large-cid... */
The code is currently written as if 'ts' is in the same (2nd) byte as the T and M bits.