Wireshark · Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Addressing FT_ types

[Alexis La Goutte <alexis.lagoutte@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Pascal Quantin <pascal.quantin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Le 29 déc. 2014 16:59, <mmann78@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

>
> I was looking to add an FT_ enumeration for Fibre Channel addresses.  See https://code.wireshark.org/review/6098/  for my attempt. Because the Fibre Channel address already had an "address type" (AT_FC), I thought a corresponding FT_ was appropriate.   That seems to be how many of the "address types" are turned into field types.  The review comments so far suggest that maybe an FT_ enumeration isn't the way to go, so I thought I'd pose the question to -dev. 
>  
> A Fibre Channel address is a 3 byte value, displayed with a decimal between each byte, displayed as hex values (ie ff.ff.ff).  It does not have a "name resolution" component (like IP or Ethernet addresses).
>  
> So if you're creating an hf_ item for it, I believe any of the following could be the way to represent it. 
>  
> 1. FT_FC, BASE_NONE (current approach)
> 2a. FT_UINT24, BASE_DOT (Suggestion that BASE_DOT would but a decimal between each byte value).  proto_tree_add_item using the hf_ field would need a ENC_BIG_ENDIAN parameter.
> 2b. FT_UINT24, BASE_HEX|BASE_DOT (to ensure bytes are represented as hexadecimal.  So an IPv4 address could be considered FT_UINT32, BASE_DEC|BASE_DOT if not for the name resolution)
> 3. FT_BYTES, BASE_DOT (perhaps other address types could just be different "punctuation" BASEs between their byte values)
>  
>  
> I'm looking for the "best", or at least "most consistent" approach.  I also don't mind taking the time to change other existing methods to be able to identify/keep that consistency.  Big picture is trying to cleanup address_to_str functionality as some of the comments in the code suggest.
>

Hi,

On my side I like option 3.

Hi,

For me, don't add a new FT_ type if there is no "resolve functions" (like resolve name for IPv4/IPv6/ Ethernet/EUI64...)

I like the option 3 too (add also BASE_DASH...)

Regards,

___________________________________________________________________________
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