Worth documenting in the draft ;-) On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 05:05:45PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote: > > 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 > > > >
-- --- [email protected] _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
