RE: [Ethereal-doc] ethereal -G (Protocol and field names)

[Biot Olivier <Olivier.Biot@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Guy,

I agree with your proposition.  In order to make it clearer for all
protocols available in Ethereal 0.9.9 (plus WBXML decoding), I've created a
small web page where an example HTML representation of all Ethereal
protocols and fields can be found in an alphabetical order.

	http://home.tiscali.be/olivier.biot/ethereal/

The actual procedure is also described on this web page. I'm currently
misusing MS Excel, eventually all the code should be written to a (set of)
script(s).

By means of this list, I could verify that sometimes protocol field names
don't refer anymore to the protocol in their field names, and other ones
share a common prefix (see IPv6 where the mobile IPv6 parameters start with
ipv6.mipv6_[subfield name]: shouldn't we write something like "ipv6.mip."
instead?)

We could then agree on the proposed protocol (field) names for an 1.0
release :)

Please comment!

Regards,

Olivier

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Guy Harris [mailto:guy@xxxxxxxxxx]
> 
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:10:16PM +0100, Biot Olivier wrote:
> > Which logic should we apply to protocol names and their 
> associated protocol
> > field names (especially in situations where protocols 
> implicitly refer to
> > other protocols)?
> 
> "wap-wsp-wtp", as an Ethereal protocol name, actually refers only to
> WTP, and "wap-wsp", as an Ethereal protocol name, actually refers to
> WSP, regardless of whether it's running directly over UDP or 
> running over
> WTP.
> 
> As such, in that particular case, I'd be inclined to rename
> "wap-wsp-wtp" to "wtp", because
> 
> 	1) the registered fields have just "wtp";
> 
> 	2) people might expect to use "wtp" to filter for WTP packets;
> 
> and inclined to rename "wap-wsp" to "wsp", for similar reasons.