On May 28, 2018, at 9:29 AM, Richard Sharpe wrote:
> This is in relation to the radiotap headers for HE and HE-MU (and more).
"More" as in MCS, VHT, HE-MU-other-user, HE-MU, and HE, all of which have
"known" flags.
> The issue is that there are fields in those headers that are unknown
> unless
atch your reports closely.
Best regards...Paul
Sent from Samsung Mobile on O2
Original message
From: Richard Sharpe
Date: 28/05/2018 17:29 (GMT+00:00)
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Does proto_deregister_field really work?
On Sun, May 2
On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 3:19 AM, Peter Wu wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 04:51:13PM -0700, Richard Sharpe wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I have an application where I want to change the specification of an
>> HF entry or two, and found proto_deregister_field.
>>
>> It would seem that
Hi Richard,
On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 04:51:13PM -0700, Richard Sharpe wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I have an application where I want to change the specification of an
> HF entry or two, and found proto_deregister_field.
>
> It would seem that I can deregister a field and then register a new
> version
Hi folks,
I have an application where I want to change the specification of an
HF entry or two, and found proto_deregister_field.
It would seem that I can deregister a field and then register a new
version of it ... as long as I am careful.
What is the cost of doing this?
Is an alternative to r
