Eliot Lear <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd like to see these docs advance as well. My only question is whether the > pcapng doc should be a Proposed Standard.
I started with that belief.
Overtime, people have complained that the format is not what the IETF would
do if it started today. And, did we even have change control if we have to
compatible with what has been out there?
(Probably, we'd do some kind of CBOR container, today).
So the plan evolved to publishing as Informational (pcapng "1.0"), and if
there was a desire to do something with more IETF change control that a 2.0
could be done.
> On 15.11.2023 10:33, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> Hi, the three PCAP I-Ds have been stable for sometime now.
>>
>> draft-ietf-opsawg-pcap-03 - going to Historic.
>> draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype - Standards Track to create Registry
>> draft-ietf-opsawg-pcapng-01 - going to Informational.
>>
>> Can we WGLC them, and find shepherds for them?
>>
>> --
>> Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
>> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OPSAWG mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
