Hang on a moment. The PCAP community has been looking for a home to evolve the work. We can decide on whether to start with informational or STD but the reason to lean toward the latter is that this is a broadly used standard that is looking for a home to evolve. Moreover, there is a clear need for IANA here, for tagging information inside the PCAP. This is really a win-win opportunity. The PCAP developers need a place that helps them formally state extensions and they need a way to not trip over one another on extension numbers. Does that mean we have to take the doc as it is? No. But changes should simply be by consensus, and I doubt you will find a lot of consensus for frivolous changes.
Eliot > On 11 Nov 2020, at 10:21, Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
