Alan DeKok <[email protected]> wrote: >> (or who read THEDRAFT), but i remember older RFCs that clearly state when a protocol >> is a proprietary vendor protocol not developed by the IETF. I think this RFC should >> have done it too for clarity. BY not writing it clearly, it looks like a particular >> vendor endorsement by IETF in an inappropriate fashion.
> That's a reasonable point. But the doc is "Informational", and the
> protocol has a 20+ year history. So it's pretty clear where it came
> from. And, that documentation does not imply endorsement.
Hi, so PCAPNG does not have a 20+ year history. More like 6-8 year.
*PCAP* does have ~30 year history.
MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have a suggestion: the pcapng work proposal goes forward as *two
drafts*:
> 1. a draft intended as an Independent Submission RFC to describe
> pcapng/2010 *as-is*.
That would be draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap-00, and I will bring it to ISE.
If this WG would prefer to adopt is as a set, that's fine with me.
There are IANA Registries that could move around.
> 2. a proposal for a WG draft, to collect all the new/good ideas while
> (probably) maintaining backward compatibility with pcapng/2010 and the
> utilities that read/write it.
That would be draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng-02
> The WG helps prepare *both* drafts, but when 1. is deemed complete and
> accurate it heads off to the Independent Stream.
> I have zero skin in this game, except that I capture packets whenever I
need to...
I have this image of Cookie Monster.
--
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
