On 27. Oct 2021, at 23:06, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 26. Oct 2021, at 20:57, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Here is an example of a LINKTYPE that would be very difficult to explain if >>> it weren't in the context of a pcap/pcapng file. > >> β¦ >>> LINKTYPE_USB_LINUX_MMAPPED 220 >>> USB packets, beginning with a Linux USB header, as specified by the >>> struct usbmon_packet in the Documentation/usb/usbmon.txt file in the >> β¦ > >> Whether that is a good registry entry is for the designated expert (DE) >> to decide, not for the IESG. > > The document in question would have to establish the history of the entries.
Why are you saying this? (Maybe I donβt parse this right.) > The IESG will ask questions about this part. It will happen. Sure, Iβve seen the IESG ask questions before. I think they will be quite sympathetic that we are doing most of the entries outside of IETF consensus to reduce their workload. >> The third document would establish the registry and maybe provide a few >> entries so the IESG has some examples to look at. > > Not a few entries, all of the history of them. What Iβm trying to say is that this doesnβt have to be done in the IETF consensus document. >> Loading that registry is then done via IANA and the DE. > > No, that's now how it's worked in the past, and now what IANA told me. Canβt parse. Which of the βnowβ are βnotβ maybe? The way I have proposed is exactly how a registry is run. GrΓΌΓe, Carsten _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
