[Eric Paris <eparis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

So what is appropriate for me to get this dissector in without these
priorities?   If anyone has a SIGCOMP capture I can play with I can make
sure my heuristic registration doesn't conflict with that traffic.  In
my original testing some of my packets were showing up as SIGCOMP, but I
eliminated that when I implemented conversations.  I believe this is
because we test for conversations first.  

What do I need to do to my dissector to get it accepted?

Eric


On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 11:39 +0200, martin.regner@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Ronnie Sahlberg wrote:
> > 
> > Maybe we should then change the proto registration code to allow
> > multiple new-style dissectors to register on the same port?
> 
> Yes, I think that is something to consider, maybe in combinations with other improvements.
> 
> It would be good to consider some kind of prioritization scheme for in what order different dissectors are called based on how weak heuristics they are using and similar.
> I would also like to have a possibility to save "decode as" settings on permantent basis (including
> priority settings etc.)
> 
> I think I have written some mails to the list about some preliminar ideas I had some months
> ago, but I haven't had time to look so much further yet.
> 
> I have noticed that several of my collegues are getting problems due to that they get
> certain packets decoded with wrong dissector.