Hello Michael, Sorry for the late reply, but gmail decided your mail belonged in my spam folder for some unfathomable reason.
I must then admit my lack of knowledge on the PCAP-NG format and its possibilities and support in e.g., open source libraries. I've added a comment/TODO for this in the issue where we're tracking the qlog serialization format at https://github.com/quiclog/internet-drafts/issues/144#issuecomment-844023310 Any initial materials you might provide for this would be most welcome. The question about what to do with the separate qlog mailing list now that we're eyeing QUIC wg adoption will be escalated to the ADs. Thanks for mentioning this. With best regards, Robin On Mon, 10 May 2021 at 16:45, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Robin MARX <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree there is significant overlap between PCAP and qlog > conceptually > > (though I did not know pcap was actually considered for adoption at > the > > IETF). > > Please note that pcap (legacy) is intended as Informational. > PCAP-NG (I hate "NG" for a format that is now 10 years old!), is intended > as > Standards Track. > > > However, from my understanding, the PCAP format is strongly oriented > > Your understanding is accurate for PCAP, but not for PCAP-NG. > If I had a do-over, PCAP-NG would have been pure-CBOR. > > > Finally, I've added the QUIC wg in CC, as that's where most of the > > work/discussion will likely be done in the future. > > Then, I suggest maybe the qlog ML should get killed, if you want discussion > on the QUIC list. > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > > > > -- dr. Robin Marx Postdoc researcher - Web protocols Expertise centre for Digital Media *Cellphone *+32(0)497 72 86 94 www.uhasselt.be Universiteit Hasselt - Campus Diepenbeek Agoralaan Gebouw D - B-3590 Diepenbeek Kantoor EDM-2.05
