Based upon the three minute discussion on Wednesday morning, and the many many emails over the past few years(!), do the chairs feel that we have WG consensus to go with the plan outlined in: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/115/materials/slides-115-opsawg-pcappcapng-and-pcap-link-types-revised-proposal-00
Specifically:
1) Adopt draft-richardson-opsawg-pcaplinktype as a WG document, on
Standards Track (so it can create the right registries).
[It really is a boring document]
2) Adopt draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap as a WG document to be published as
*Historic*
3) Adopt draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcap as a WG document to be published as
*Informational*
(note that there was some half-adoption that occured three IETFs ago, so you
may find there is already draft-ietf-opsawg-FOO)
For (2) and (3) the alternative is AD Sponsor or ISE, but the AD expressed
preference for the WG to process the document.
All three documents can be found at: https://github.com/pcapng/pcapng
if there are pull requests that someone would like to make when they do their
review.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
