Thanks for summarizing, Michael. I’ll crank up an IPR poll and WG LC on
linktype now.
As a contributor, I also don’t like “NG” or anything that inherently gets out
of date immediately. I have no qualms with v2. We’ve seen this with other
protocols.
Now, as a chair…
What is your timetable for the other two? I don’t see PCAP changing much
(being as it is historical). Would it make sense to WG LC this now as well?
Joe
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>
Date: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 at 14:00
To: opsawg@ietf.org <opsawg@ietf.org>
Subject: [OPSAWG]advancing PCAP drafts (Re: I-D Action:
draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype-04.txt)
Hi, I believe that pcaplinktype is ready for WGLC as Standards Track document.
This document was split out of the other documents so each could proceed
along a different track.
We've had a long discussion about how to structure things, and I will remind
of the plan:
a) pcaplinktype establishes the critical registry for LINKTYPE values.
At some point the ISE said that they didn't think ISE documents could
establish registries that required IETF actions. This view has been
disputed, but irregardless, we know that WGs can do this.
b) pcap will be published as *HISTORIC*
c) pcapng will be published as *Informational*
I would dearly like to call it anything other than pcap *NG*, because 15
years later, it's not "Next" anymore. pcapv2 would satisfy me.
This leaves open the future possibility of a fully IETF designed pcapv3, or a
series of pcapv2 extensions that does effectively the same thing, perhaps
based upon a CBOR encoded header.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
