The IPR poll is done. I’m asking about the shepherd question to get explicit
desire to be an author and to act as a DE. If the answer is yes to both,
great! I will note that in my shepherd write-up.
On the “polish” I pointed out NITs being raised due to old references. My
question to you, the authors, was whether it made sense to update them. That’s
when Guy responded with a desire to publish a new revision.
I said I don’t think any more polish is needed (i.e., formatting). It does
sound like there are some substantive updates to references pending, and that
would be a worthy update. I haven’t heard any feedback from the WG that says
more changes are needed.
Joe
From: Michael Richardson <m...@sandelman.ca>
Date: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 at 14:41
To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com>
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org <opsawg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG]Re: WG LAST CALL: Link-Layer Types for PCAP and PCAPNG
Capture File Formats (draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype)
Joe Clarke \(jclarke\) <jclarke=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> * Authors wish to update the I-D to address some references
I think we are really done.
It could be polished forever.
> * The shepherd (me) is awaiting confirmation from Michael as to his
> desire to be author and to be listed as an initial designated expert
> for the new registry.
Huh? I was sure I answered that I had no IPR months ago.
_I have no IPR_
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
