[Jaap Keuter <jaap.keuter@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Could you file a bug report on this at bugs.wireshark.org ?
Just paste this text in the report and attach the sample captur there.
This will make sure the info doesn't get lost and can be picked up by any
developer willing to invest the time.

Thanx,
Jaap

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, Rob Swindell wrote:

> Ethereal already correctly parses ASF RMCP traffic, but doesn't
> recognize "Secure RMCP" traffic (on UDP port 664), as defined in the ASF
> 2.0 specification.
>
> See the attached capture of a valid Secure RMCP "Open Session" request
> and response.
>
> Here's a link to the ASF specification which defines the format of
> non-secure RMCP (ASF 1.0) and Secure RMCP (ASF 2.0) packets:
>
> http://www.dmtf.org/standards/documents/ASF/DSP0136.pdf
>
> The difference between RMCP and Secure RMCP is that Secure RMCP traffic
> is received on a different UDP port and the RMCP message is encapsulated
> in an RSP header and trailer (defined in the ASF 2.0 specification
> reference above).
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Rob Swindell
> Senior Staff Software Engineer
> Broadcom Corporation
> 949-585-6493
> swindell@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>

_______________________________________________
Ethereal-users mailing list
Ethereal-users@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.ethereal.com/mailman/listinfo/ethereal-users