On 8/12/24, 08:36, "Michael Richardson" <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> wrote:
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca<mailto:mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>> wrote: > Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com<mailto:jcla...@cisco.com>> wrote: >> I agree that pcap is ready to go. >> I'll double check just to be sure. >> [JMC] Give me the all clear, and I’ll run the WG LC in parallel. > I have double checked. > I think that the introduction needs some text explaining that this document > is Historial. That paragraph would also have an informative reference to > pcap"ng". > Is there a recommended template for that? What I have so far: https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/draft-ietf-opsawg-pcap/pull/162 This reads well to me. But what I’m seeing as a chair is that more discussion is needed on this one, so I’ll kick off the WG LC on linktype by itself. One thing that occurs to me – not to throw a wrench in this – is why not make pcap informational (like we did with TACACS+)? I suppose one reason to make it historical is if the pcap format is no longer being used (as opposed to pcapng). Joe
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
