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.
That "common location" has to be created. That's being done by the pcap document. (It could be done by a third document, but that seems wasteful) Pcapng would never have to point to pcap: it would always point at the IANA registry. It does have to wait for the registry to exist. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IΓΈT 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
