Guy Harris <ghar...@sonic.net> wrote:
> I believe the intent is that the registry established by the RFC would
> replace the list, in which case the page could point to the RFC and the
> repository.
> Note, however, that many of the references for the LINKTYPE_ values are
> descriptions under https://www.tcpdump.org/linktypes/, so it's not as
> if that stuff could be removed, unless we have another home for those
> descriptions.
Based upon somewhat recent discussions elsewhere, the RPC/IANA likely will
run a script to make sure archive.org has a copy, and possibly they will also
keep their own copy... for archeologists in 2593.
{ cf:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Deepness_in_the_Sky#Interstellar_culture }
>> Is the “Reserved for” really meaningful and important when putting this
in an RFC? I would remove all the “Reserved for “.
> Those are values assigned to the purpose in question, but for which we
> don't have a good reference and don't have a good detailed description
> to turn into a page on tcpdump.org. The description is lacking either
> because 1) it'd take some work to look at code, both tcpdump/Wireshark
> dissection code and code that generates the packets or 2) the packets
> require some ugly hacks to interpret them, as they're
> platform-dependent (PF packet filter logging has entered the chat).
Anyway, the point of this document isn't to make any of these heuristics
better or to document them, but to just allow them to exist.
Let's not overthink this document.
[The interesting discussion to have is "ecap" (my preferred rename of "pcapng")]
--
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
