Joerg Mayer wrote: >The reason for my question is that someone had network trouble and looked >at the error/warning items. Had RST been at that level, he would have found >the problem lots of work hours earlier - the RSTs were indications of a >real problem. > >So the question is: Do we allow lazy application writers to "hide" indications >of real problems in the network?
For what it's worth, I emphatically agree that RST abuse is is a problem (see RFC-3360 for still more corroboration http://tools.ietf.org/search/rfc3360). By flagging these as warning indications rather than chat, misbehaving applications will be more apparent, but at the potential risk of flooding the poor network engineer with irrelevant data. However, I think that it's probably data that can easily be filtered out. For that reason, I'd strongly endorse changing them to "warning" level. Ed ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
