Comment # 5
on bug 11007
from Pascal Quantin
(In reply to Peter Wu from comment #4)
> Pascal, bug 9518 only notes that the field is displayed on an unexpected
> location. The reported did not ask for the field itself (you can use
> http2.length to get the length and use http2.magic to filter on the
> exceptional case).
I agree and understand your point. Still this field is present since ages
(1.0.0 according to https://www.wireshark.org/docs/dfref/t/tcp.html) so I would
have to get it fixed in master-1.12 branch (what my patch set currently does).
Then we can have a discussion on -dev mailing list for example to decide
whether it should be removed from Wireshark 2.0 or not. But I really believe it
should be a 2 steps procedure.
You are receiving this mail because:
- You are watching all bug changes.