["Maynard, Chris" <Christopher.Maynard@xxxxxxxxx>]

Crap, I just realized there are two separate bugs, #'s 2423, which I
filed and 2433, which you filed.  The #'s were so close that at first
glance, I thought they were the same.  I guess that's why I didn't get
any notification of an update - there weren't any.  Might as well mark
mine/yours a duplicate of the other then.

-----Original Message-----
From: wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Maynard, Chris
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 2:51 PM
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] services file and port ranges

Ah, I didn't notice your additional comments when I posted the link
because I didn't scroll down the page and for whatever reason I wasn't
CC'd when the bug was updated like I normally am, so I didn't expect
there to be any additional comments.  Oh well.  Anyway, I don't really
care which patch is used; yours seems to support more than mine and uses
stuff already in place, so you might as well go with yours.

- Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrew Feren
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 2:33 PM
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] services file and port ranges

Fair enough, but before I saw this I had also posted my patch for
review:
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2433

Main difference is I used the existing range functions in range.h.

-Andrew

--- "Maynard, Chris" <Christopher.Maynard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I posted a bug report and proposed patch for review already:
> http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2423
> 
> - Chris
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrew Feren
> Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 12:48 PM
> To: Developer support list for Wireshark
> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] services file and port ranges
> 
> I vote to parse the range.
> 
> As parsing the range makes it easier to do something I want anyway,
I'll
> post
> a patch to the bugs list shortly.
> 
> -Andrew
> 
> 
> --- "Maynard, Chris" <Christopher.Maynard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > I noticed that IANA lists a few ports in ranges.  For example, x11
is
> > listed as:
> > x11             6000-6063/tcp   X Window System
> > x11             6000-6063/udp   X Window System
> > 
> > But addr_resolv.c:parse_service_line() currently expects entries in
> > services(5) format, i.e., a single port only.  So, should IANA be
> > encouraged to change their format to avoid port ranges and comply
with
> > the format specified in services(5)?  Or, more likely, should the
> > parsing of the services file be changed so that a range of ports is
> > allowed and any port within the range will be returned as the
> > corresponding service name?
> > 
> > - Chris
> > References: http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers.
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wireshark-dev mailing list
> > Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
> > 
> 
> 
> -Andrew Feren
>  acferen@xxxxxxxxx
> _______________________________________________
> Wireshark-dev mailing list
> Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
> _______________________________________________
> Wireshark-dev mailing list
> Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
> 


-Andrew Feren
 acferen@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
_______________________________________________
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev