Hello Michael, Thanks for your quick reply and the proposed changes.
I will let the responsible AD sort out the publication status. About IANA, I am unsure whether I have seen a FCFS registry with expert review, but happy to stand corrected. Regards -éric On 10/10/2025, 20:50, "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. > Moreover, draft-ietf-opsawg-pcapng has, rightfully, a normative reference to a > previous version (draft-richardson-opsawg-pcaplinktype) of this I-D, i.e., this > creates a downref. Fixed in my copy. > ### Abstract > An abstract should be short of course, but this one is a little too short: why > not adding reference (expansion at least) for PCAP. It also uses the word > "describes", which is correct for an informational I-D, even if it actually > "specifies" the value, i.e., why not 'proposed standard' ? I'm not sure PCAP still has an expansion, but I've expanded it to "Packet CAPture". How about: This document describes a set of Packet CAPture (PCAP)-related LinkType values and creates an IANA registry for those values. These values are used by the PCAP and PCAP-Now-Generic specifications. > ### Section 2 > As I spotted only one use of BCP14 (moreover in an informational I-D) in > section 3.2 (IANA considerations), please remove this section. See also > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-the-use-of-bcp-14-key-words/ > about the use of BCP14 terms in IANA considerations. fixed. > ### Section 3.2.2 > Per section 4.2 of RFC 8126, there is no designated expert for a FCFS registry, > i.e., remove this section or change the registry policy to 'expert review'. So, we want FCFS with Expert Review.
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
