Thanks for the IPR confirmation. I’m all for giving credit to where it’s due,
but would be sufficient to link to this CREDITS page?
I’m all for a non-ng name. What is “ecap”?
As for mentioning the “future work” I don’t think we need to forward link to
that in the historical doc.
Joe
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>
Date: Friday, July 18, 2025 at 05:51
To: opsawg@ietf.org <opsawg@ietf.org>
Subject: [OPSAWG]some questions to the WG about *pcap*
(0. Somewhere I had an email asking of I had IPR, and I can't find that email,
so here is my public statement that I have none.)
1. In draft-ietf-opsawg-pcap we suggest that we are going to fill the
contributors section in with the contents of
https://github.com/the-tcpdump-group/libpcap/blob/master/CREDITS
Is the WG okay with this? I propose names, not email addresses.
I propose using the XML mechanism for contributors, not free-form.
2. I've made some minor edits around the endian clue from the magic number,
which are now:
https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/draft-ietf-opsawg-pcap/pull/187
Also that version numbers are independent.
3. I clarified document to say it's intention is historical.
4. I'd really like to rename pcapng -> ecap.
Since pcap refers to it as "new" work, it needs to know the name.
pcapng^Wecap would be published as Informational, because IETF can not
make significant changes to it.
If there energy to revise ecap, then we would do the normal "2.0"
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
