Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 2020-11-10, at 22:23, Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Why is the document not using a formal language to define the >> > syntax/semantic of its formatting ? Would CBOR/CDDL not be a >> > good candidate ? Any other ? >> >> Well, changing the format to be more regular (e.g., CBOR) is not what we want.
> Why not ? Its a new format, its meant to be easily extensible, verifyable,
> etc. pp ..
pcap *NG* is a 10year old document which has been the native format for
wireshark.
tcpdump/libpcap reads it, but doesn't know how to write it, so tcpdump still
writes in pcap.
The pcapng document itself is ~6 years old, and there were not always people
cycles
available to edit and respond to reviews.
The pcap format is ~35 years old, and I've lead a crew of very talented, and
dedicated volunteers who maintain libpcap/tcpdump since 1998 or so.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
