[Richard Urwin <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wednesday 05 Nov 2003 12:31 am, Bryan Henderson wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >> But I also agree that when "frame" is the well-known term for something
> >> else in a particular protocol, ethereal should use it that way.
> >
> >But we don't have the discrimination to change terminology on a protocol
> >by protocol basis.
>
> I thought someone earlier referred to doing just that -- I thought it was
> a reference to outputs of dissectors and comments and names in dissector
> code.  If some protocol three levels deep conventionally calls its unit of
> information a "frame", I don't see why an ethereal display at that level
> shouldn't say "frame length = 40, frame header=..." or whatever.

agreed

-- 
Richard Urwin