On Apr 10, 2025, at 8:57 AM, Joe Clarke (jclarke)
<[email protected]> wrote:
> As a contributor. I have read this document, and I appreciate the formatting
> changes the authors have made. I think it is ready for publication.
As the person listed as editor, I think that the version at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype
is not the version I would like to see published as an RFC. The version at
https://ietf-opsawg-wg.github.io/draft-ietf-opsawg-pcap/draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype.html
is closer - a few of the descriptions are still longer than they should be for
the proposed registry, and I plan to clean those up and create pages at
tcpdump.org to use as references.
The latter version also addresses at one of your comments in another email, as
it no longer includes the RFC 2119 boilerplate. In addition, it no longer uses
any IP-over-Fibre Channel RFC a a reference - instead, it points to a
tcpdump.org page for that link-layer type, which gives more details, and which,
in turn, refers to RFC 4338 rather than RFC 2625. (I will also address those in
a response to that email.)
> As a chair, I assume that mcr and Guy would be willing to act as initial
> designated experts on this?
Yes, I would be willing to act as an initial designated expert.
> I have assigned myself the shepherd role, and I’ll be working through the
> write-up. Guy and mcr, are you two willing to remain authors on this?
As long as the final RFC is based on something closer to the
https://ietf-opsawg-wg.github.io/draft-ietf-opsawg-pcap/draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype.html
version than the
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype
version of the I-D, yes, I would be willing to remain an author on this.
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
