Wireshark · Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Undissected reserved fields

[Evan Huus <eapache@xxxxxxxxx>]

Should Wireshark have an internal _ws.reserved FT_BYTES field and a
proto_tree_add_reserved(tvb, offset, len) API?

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Jeff Morriss <jeff.morriss.ws@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> +1
>
> On 02/27/15 14:04, mmann78@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>> What I've done is usually setup a FT_UINT32 and/or a FT_BYTES (with
>> different abbreviations) and that's usually inclusive enough (maybe if
>> I'm feeling generous setup a FT_UINT8 though FT_UINT32).  If dissectors
>> only have FT_UINT8 "reserved" fields, then I just add that.  But I
>> rarely look to give each reserved field a unique name.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Graham Bloice <graham.bloice@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: Developer support list for Wireshark <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Fri, Feb 27, 2015 1:43 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Undissected reserved fields
>>
>> How do we handle the case where a protocol has many reserved fields, do
>> they each need an hf and a 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