> On 18. Jul 2022, at 13:05, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. I also would like to know how to progress things... Having a specification for .pcap and .pcapng and a registry managed by IANA would be really useful in my view. I'm willing to spend cycles on it...
Best regards Michael > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
