Thanks for explaining. Cc'in ISE to keep me honest:
I don't think this process ("IETF bless this protocol, no, we can't change
anything
significant") is appropriate for an Internet Standards Track RFC. I can not
even see informatinal as appropriate if WG consensus is constrained by
pre-existing
code developed without consensus by the WG. Ideally a spec like this should be
an
individual submission RFC. I don't think that prohibits that OPSAWG can be used
as
a location where the authors ask for feedback and decide which of the feedback
they
are willing to incorporate. I would certainly encourage OPSAWG to do that. I
think
that best allows the authors to maintain ownership of all design decisions and
get all the community feedback that suits the authors.
Cheers
Toerless
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 09:54:22AM +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> PCAPNG is a done deal.
>
> We might want to discuss a next generation after that, but I would expect
> that people are still happy after having migrated from PCAP to PCAPNG.
>
> So this effort was about documenting the protocol and making sure the
> extension points are well-documented and well-curated.
>
> Grüße, Carsten
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
