Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com> wrote:
> 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).
pcap -- historical. No updates, never gonna revise it.
pcap"ng" -- informational, expect standards track Updates in the future.
Guy's point about version fields being not that useful; if we need them then
the extensibility of the pcapng was done wrong.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
