> On Jun 9, 2017, at 2:34 AM, Shane Kerr <[email protected]> wrote: > > Robert, > > At 2017-06-07 15:33:25 -0400 > Robert Edmonds <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Merike Kaeo wrote: >>> It was decided that we should write an Informational RFC to >>> document current dnstap capabilities and I offered to shepherd the >>> editing of this document. If you are interested in being a >>> co-author, please send me a note (or reply to this list). I spoke >>> with Matt Poundsett at NANOG 2 days ago and he kindly sent me info >>> on markdown so I wouldn’t have to revert to ‘vi’ and hand-edit html >>> (yes, I used to edit some rfcs that way) and has offered to create >>> the initial template. THANK YOU!! >> >> Before we get started on an I-D, I think it would be prudent to get an >> answer to whether an RFC (even an informational RFC) can specify >> something that depends on an unspecified wire encoding like Protocol >> Buffers 2. > > The IETF's kung-fu would have to be pretty weak if we can't make an > informational RFC that refers to a format not standardized officially > anywhere. :)
I think we are good but I did want to check with a few folks at IETF for due diligence. Dayjob has been busy so will be getting to this over the weekend. Also, have had some folks send me email unicast who wanted to contribute. More in a few days. - merike
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ dnstap mailing list [email protected] http://lists.redbarn.org/mailman/listinfo/dnstap
