As for the coloring rule, thanks for the heads up, but I think I should be able to update them accordingly, possibly using the "expert info" (display) filter instead of the pure dissector display filter.
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Maynard <Christopher.Maynard@xxxxxxxxx>
To: wireshark-dev <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thu, Jun 27, 2013 3:38 pm
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Checksum filterable fields
<mmann78@...> writes:
> Perhaps all checksum validations could be an enumeration of
> "-1" (or "2"?) - unknown/disabled
> "0" - good
> "1" - bad
The TCP dissector does something similar for the window scaling factor. If
the 3-way handshake isn't captured, then the scaling factor is unknown and
set to -1. So, there is some precedence at indicating unknown values using
-1, and if changes are to be made, then -1 would be my vote.
> If we're already going to take a hit with changed display filter names in
the name of consistency, why not go all the way?
I like consistency, so it's fine by me. Just my 2 cents though.
Removing the bad_checksums does have at least 1 drawback though, and that's
that several of them are used in default coloring rules, so if they're
removed, users will likely end up with several warnings of the form:
Warn Could not compile color filter "Checksum Errors" from saved filters:
"<protocol>.checksum_bad" is neither a field nor a protocol name.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
