Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Ethereal: doc
ethereal -G (Protocol and field names)

Index | Next | Previous | View Flat

Olivier.Biot at siemens

Feb 27, 2003, 1:10 PM

Views: 6408
ethereal -G (Protocol and field names)

Hi all,

While automating the generation of protocol field documentation (after
per-protocol sorting of protocol field names), I came across the conclusion
that most of the protocol fields for a given protocol also share the
protocol name as first part of the field name (e.g., aarp (Appletalk Address
Resolution Protocol) has a field named aarp.dst.hw). However not all
protocols do share this logic.

If I understand it correctly, we often refer to a protocol by 2 names: the
official protocol name (e.g., as listed in IANA assigned port numbers) and
an internal name.

Sometimes one protocol is defined but the IANA repository (or another body)
refers to a set of related protocols. Example: the WTP protocol is used in
connection-oriented WSP. We are able to decode it when using nonsecure WSP
(no WTLS), this means IANA port 9201, with registered IANA protocol "name":

The same is true for the WSP protocol, which exists in 2 flavors (WTLS
security not considered here): connectionless (wap-wsp, port 9200) and
connection-oriented (wap-wsp-wtp, port 9201). See the confusion?

Which logic should we apply to protocol names and their associated protocol
field names (especially in situations where protocols implicitly refer to
other protocols)?



Subject User Time
ethereal -G (Protocol and field names) Olivier.Biot at siemens Feb 27, 2003, 1:10 PM
    Re: ethereal -G (Protocol and field names) guy at netapp Feb 27, 2003, 1:19 PM
    RE: ethereal -G (Protocol and field names) Olivier.Biot at siemens Feb 27, 2003, 3:29 PM

  Index | Next | Previous | View Flat

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.