David Lamparter <[email protected]> wrote: > just a quick note here on tuexen-opsawg-pcapng[-04]. The draft has > been quite helpful in some work writing out pcapng files.
The status of the WG consensus on the documents is a bit vague to me. The last concrete suggestion from Carsten was that neither document be adopted as standards track, but that a third (to-be-written/extracted) document would create the IANA Registry for LINK_TYPE (only). https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/-eRl2Q2PERXXA2J0fm2mEDAe_MQ/ That would permit the other two documents (pcap-legacy and pcapng) to proceed via ISE. ISE otherwise is forbidden from creating registries. I didn't see a groundswell of support for Carsten's suggestion, but I also didn't hear any arguments aginst it. I would sure like to hear from the chairs. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
