On 6/29/21 20:41, Michael Richardson wrote: > Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > I have reposted the PCAP and PCAP-NG documents. > > > Name: draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap > > Title: PCAP Capture File Format > > Html: > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap-02.html > > Diff: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap-02 > > This diff is mostly just about filling in missing LinkTypes. > > > Name: draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng > > Title: PCAP Next Generation (pcapng) Capture File Format > > Html: > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng-03.html > > Diff: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng-03 > > This diff is half format changes, and the rest are additions of new block > types. > Should systemd block type be in an IETF *standard*, or another document? > I'm open to splitting some of that up.
As a contributor... Given how systemd is prone to considerable change, I'd think it would be best to leave that out. That said, the pull request language in -03 has me curious. If someone were to raise a PR against this doc, that would be outside the IETF process. Is the intent then that this would leave to a bis or other draft to update this document? And if so, is that desirable, or would it be better to have this live in GitHub outside of the IETF process altogether (like the semver spec does)? Joe _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
