From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]>
Date: Friday, October 10, 2025 at 17:49
To: Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) 
<[email protected]>, The IESG <[email protected]>, 
[email protected] 
<[email protected]>, [email protected] 
<[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] 
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype-12: 
(with COMMENT)


On 10/10/25, 14:50, "Michael Richardson" <[email protected]> wrote:
Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
    > ## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

    > ### Why informational ?

    > The shepherd write-up is rather silent on the intended status of 
informational
    > as it seems to me that proposed standard would be a better fit.

Informational Seems wrong.
I see that the document declares that, and I think that's a copy'n'paste 
mistake.
It should be std.  At one point, we were told that only IETF-stream STD could
create certain categories of registry, and that's why we couldn't go ISE.

[JMC] Yes, I think this is a byproduct of how the document evolved both itself 
and with PCAP and PCAPng.  Given the registry, yes, PS is probably a better 
choice.  I can update the shepherd write-up.

[JMC2] I went back to 2022/2023 to refresh my memory on this.  There was 
discussion from mcr that linktypes should be PS to provide the necessary 
registry.  Med replied he didn’t think it was so.  Mcr replied that as Info, 
the registry would only be able to provide up to Specification Required (though 
my read of 8126 is different here, and would allow up to IETF Review).  Med 
then replied, “OK, thanks. Publishing the doc as Info would be OK then.”  I 
didn’t see any other replies to this point (thread: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/dUiGXuCnMwvzAJLuMcheGXA-MUM/).

[JMC2] Given that, unless there is a need for higher-level review for registry 
entries, it seems Info is still okay.

Joe
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to