On 26. Oct 2021, at 09:00, Guy Harris <[email protected]> wrote: > > I would vote for "both should point to a common location" so that neither the > pcap nor the pcapng spec says "there is *the* list of link-layer types" - it > points to a registry, and as more types are added to the registry, more specs > can be published define them.
Indeed, and running such a registry is exactly what IANA is good at. One way to do this would be to jump-start the process by a short document establishing this registry, with a defined registration policy. (Weβd probably need to be able to point out candidates for the designated experts that will implement this policy to make this approach palatable to IESG.) This registry could (and should) be established before the two main documents are completed, as the protocols that use the registry are in use and could immediately benefit from the existence of the registry. GrΓΌΓe, Carsten _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
