To put a cap on this, we’d like feedback by November 14. Thanks. Joe and Benoît
Cisco Confidential From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]> Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 at 12:13 To: Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]>, opsawg <[email protected]> Subject: [OPSAWG]CALL FOR CONSENSUS: Re: IANA considerations for draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype Working Group, as chair, I’d like to get to consensus on this point as it’s holding up the progression of PCAP work in general. The proposal is to move the PCAP Linktypes registry to IANA maintained with an Expert Review policy as defined in RFC 8126. This would be a change from FCFS. Please review the proposal and provide your feedback on the mailing list. Specifically, please address: * Do you support or object to this change? * If you object, please provide technical reasoning why Expert Review is not sufficient Joe From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]> Date: Friday, October 24, 2025 at 13:25 To: Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]>, opsawg <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG]IANA considerations for draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype Dear WG, We started with two allocation policies: 1. First Come First Services (50% of numbers) 2. Specification Required (50% of numbers) After some thought, we flipped the two so that the existing allocations, which were not consistently Specification Required, would be in FCFS area. Then the question was asked, why would anyone go the Spec Required? So we merged it all into FCFS, but probably that was too weak, and I thought that we could have some softer review. So it's now a mess. I suggest we change this from FCFS to Expert Review. [JMC] I know I said this to a limited audience the other day, so replying here that I agree with you, Michael. Joe
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
