From: OPSAWG <opsawg-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> Sent: 12 November 2022 06:07
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* <tp> That is not what I see in the Datatracker. draft-tuexen appears in the OPSAWG pages draft-richardson-opsawg-pcaplinktype appears in the OPSAWG pages draft-gharris does not appear There are two other, perhaps related, I-D which appear draft-ietf-opsawg-pcap-01 dated 29jul22 author G Harris status Informational draft-richardson-opsawg-pcapng-extras-01 30jul22 Perhaps three minutes was not enough:-( Tom Petch (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 =- _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
