Joerg Mayer skrev 2012-06-06 16:15:
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 08:46:37AM +0200, Anders Broman wrote:
Joerg Mayer skrev 2012-06-05 21:52:
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 08:38:26AM +0000, etxrab@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc/viewvc.cgi?view=rev&revision=41952
User: etxrab
Date: 2012/04/05 01:38 AM
Log:
Use common code to add ip version to the tree.
Directory: /trunk/epan/dissectors/
Changes Path Action
+8 -4 packet-ip.c Modified
+2 -0 packet-ip.h Modified
+1 -18 packet-ipv6.c Modified
I strongly disagree with this patch and the patch doing the same to dscp
(and the corresponding bug):
It completely violates the principle of least surprise: Previous to this
patch *all* filterable elements of the ipv6 protocol had filters starting
with ipv6. - this is no longer the case. The reason we have the ip_version
in ipv6 *in addition to* ipv6_version was exactly this: Some people might
be surprised if ip.version==6 would not work - principle of least surprise
again.
I'm very much for reverting r41952 and r41953 - so much so that I will do
exactly this if there are no strong arguments to not do this.
If I remember correctly the user complaining about this was
surprised that clicking on ip.version in an IPv4
packet and doing prepare as a filter and changing the value to 6 got
no IPv6 packets match in a mixed Ipv4 Ipv6
trace.
This is very weird, bacause the ipv6_version field could be filtered with
ip.version and ipv6.version before the patch. Looks to me that something
else was wrong.
I fail to see the importance of every field name without
exception adhering to the rule of being prefixed
with "protoname". To me this is a legitimate exception.
Well, if we do an exception there should be good reasons for this and it
should be documented in the source. I fail to see good reasons in both
cases. I reopened the dscp bug to see whether the reporter and patch author
has some good reasons - the already given ones are not IMO - breaking
consistency for convenience in some "corner cases" rarely is good design.
ciao
Jörg
Ok do as you see fit I'm not going back to figure out what the original
problem was.
Regards
Anders