[pcap-ng-format] Should we add the "ntartest.c" file and some sample pcapng files from the Wireshark Wiki pcapng page to the repository?

[Alexis La Goutte]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 5:53 AM, Guy Harris <guy at alum.mit.edu> wrote:

>
> On Aug 24, 2015, at 8:32 PM, Hadriel Kaplan <the.real.hadriel at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > As for the "tool" itself, I think it's too simplistic, at least for
> > verification. By the time you add all the details for each field and
> > option, and do cross-verification of things like Interface-IDs and
> > such, you might as well have just improved the recently-added pcapng
> > format dissector in wireshark/tshark to add expert info for all the
> > conditions.
>
> ...and taken that dissector and turned it into a standalone verifying
> tool, for the benefit of those who, for whatever reason - whether we deem
> it legitimate or not - want a standalone tool rather than having to use
> Wireshark/TShark as such a tool.
>
> (Yes, I think it would be a good thing to have a verifier that's
> independent of libpcap's pcapng-reading code, Wireshark's pcapng-reading
> code, and Wireshark's pcapng-file-dissecting code.  So perhaps adding all
> the details would be a good thing, *even if it duplicates Michał's
> efforts*.  Sometimes duplication of effort is a Good Thing, especially when
> it comes to interoperability in a world where we expect duplicate
> implementations to exist, and this is such a world - I don't expect every
> packet sniffer either to use libpcap's code or to use Wireshark's code,
> especially not third-party commercial products.)
>
+1 with Guy, can be a nice to have a (small) tool for check pcapng stuff.

Regards,

> _______________________________________________
> pcap-ng-format mailing list
> pcap-ng-format at winpcap.org
> https://www.winpcap.org/mailman/listinfo/pcap-ng-format
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.winpcap.org/pipermail/pcap-ng-format/attachments/20150825/c98fb9a0/attachment-0001.html>