Ethereal-dev: Re: [Ethereal-dev] Re: Names for DCE RPC calls - why more than one?

Note: This archive is from the project's previous web site, ethereal.com. This list is no longer active.

Date Index Thread Index Other Months All Mailing Lists
Date Prev Date Next Thread Prev Thread Next
From: Tim Potter <tpot@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 08:58:38 +1000
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 11:41:44AM -0700, Guy Harris wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 09:39:34PM +1000, Tim Potter wrote:
> > I think it was mainly historical.  The original dissectors didn't have
> > access to the opnum table or couldn't find out what the opnum for the
> > function currently being dissected.  Either that or I didn't know how to
> > access that information.
> 
> I'm not sure I see what that has to do with access to the opnum table.
> 
> I.e., what I'm asking was "why not just replace the string 'OPEN_USER'
> with the string 'OpenUser' in the 'dcerpc_samr_dissectors[]' table?"

Oh sorry - I got it backwards.  That's an even better idea.  (-:

> > > And if there's a reason why there should be more than one name, why
> > > doesn't a "dcerpc_sub_dissector" structure have both names in it, so the
> > > DCE RPC dissector can put the short name into COL_INFO for you, rather
> > > than requiring dissectors to do it themselves?
> > 
> > Ah, now that was because I thought the rqst FOO_BAR(...) format put in
> > the COL_INFO format was ugly.
> 
> Well, you could change the DCE RPC dissector to use a different
> format; I'm not sure there's a reason why some DCE RPC-based protocols
> should use a different format from other protocols

OK here is a proposal:

Change the format string for the dcerpc dissector to do "FOO_BAR
request" instead of "rqst FOO_BAR(...)".  Anyone (Todd?) have any
objections?


Tim.