Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> wrote: > I think Carlos has a point. What has happened with values assigned till > now (< 301) is something we cannot change. But going forward, we can do > better. The guidance to both IANA/DE should be clear on what is > required to get new values. If requestors are presented with two > choices, and one of them is easy, i.e., provide a contact, which in my > mind is not a stable reference, why would they work on something that > is (in my opinion) much harder, i.e., specification required? We should > stick to the specifications required, giving users clarity on why the > code point is being requested.
Because the goal is to write an interoperable specification that will be
widely implemented, not to acquire a LINKTYPE.
Allocation of the LINKTYPE for the capture of that data is incidental.
If the concensus of the WG is that FCFS is enough, then we can just put them
all in that category. I've prepared text, linked in PR below.
> On the question of private vs experimental, I would first of all
> s/Private/Experimental/ in Section 2.2 for values 65001 to
> 65535. Secondly, while “Private Use” values were assigned in the past,
Okay, done.
https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/draft-ietf-opsawg-pcap/pull/185
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
