On 10/12/2011 2:20 PM, Bill Meier wrote:
On 10/12/2011 1:42 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
(Paging LTE experts here....)
On Oct 12, 2011, at 8:02 AM, wmeier@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc/viewvc.cgi?view=rev&revision=39384
User: wmeier
Date: 2011/10/12 08:02 AM
Log:
Fix a benign bug: Use correct proto_tree_add_item() encoding arg.
At least as I read RFC 3095:
UOR-2-TS
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 1 1 0 | TS |
+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+
|T=1| M | SN |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| X | CRC |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
neither the old code nor the new code are correct - the "M" bit is
in the octet after the TS field.
I don't see anything obvious in 3GPP TS 36.323 itself that says the
format is different; does something in a later RFC specify something
different?
Yep: I read the RFC the same way; There's an 'offset++' after the fetch
of ts so I think the code is Ok.
Never mind: Now I see: :)
From the code:
/* TODO: octet before large-cid.
TODO: can't decode this until we know what T is,
but T is after large-cid... */
The code is currently written as if 'ts' is in the same (2nd) byte as
the T and M bits.