On Jul 20, 2025, at 6:21 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> Michael Tuexen <michael.tue...@lurchi.franken.de> wrote: >>> Thanks for the IPR confirmation. I’m all for giving credit to where >>> it’s due, but would be sufficient to link to this CREDITS page? I’m >>> all for a non-ng name. What is “ecap”? > >> Why? People are used to the pcap-ng acronym. I do agree, that "pcap >> next generation" is not a good name. But what about "pcap now >> generic"? So keep the acronym, but choose a better name with the >> deployed acronym? > > Michael and I talked about this today at the hackathon. > I'm all for it, if the WG consents. Clever solution - keeps the initialism, gets rid of "next generation", and indicates that it's "now generic" in that you can have a useful pcapng file that contains no packets, just other information such as system events, log messages, system or API calls.... _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
