On 27. Oct 2021, at 23:06, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>
> Carsten Bormann wrote:
>>> On 26. Oct 2021, at 20:57, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is an example of a LINKTYPE that would be very difficult to explain if
>>> it weren't in the context of a pcap/pcapng file.
>
>> …
>>>
Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> On 26. Oct 2021, at 20:57, Michael Richardson
wrote:
>>
>>
>> Here is an example of a LINKTYPE that would be very difficult to explain
if
>> it weren't in the context of a pcap/pcapng file.
> …
>> LINKTYPE_USB_LINUX_MMAPPED 220
On Oct 26, 2021, at 11:57 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> LINKTYPE_USB_LINUX_MMAPPED220
> USB packets, beginning with a Linux USB header, as specified by the
> struct usbmon_packet in the Documentation/usb/usbmon.txt file in the
> Linux source tree. All 64 bytes of the
> On 26. Oct 2021, at 20:57, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>
> Here is an example of a LINKTYPE that would be very difficult to explain if
> it weren't in the context of a pcap/pcapng file.
…
> LINKTYPE_USB_LINUX_MMAPPED220
> USB packets, beginning with a Linux USB header, as specified
Here is an example of a LINKTYPE that would be very difficult to explain if
it weren't in the context of a pcap/pcapng file.
If this goes into a new document, then would it have a normative?
informative? reference to... pcap and pcapng?
I was assuming that pcap and pcapng would wind up with
Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> That's being done by the pcap document.
>> (It could be done by a third document, but that seems wasteful)
> It seems appropriate to have a third document.
> I don’t see the waste, only process improvement.
I'm not convinced that the IESG review of the
<#secure method=pgpmime mode=sign>
Qin Wu wrote:
cabo> One way to do this would be to jump-start the process by a short
cabo> document establishing this registry, with a defined registration
cabo> policy.
> [Qin] Good proposal, agree with this.
So the proposal, in order to
Carsten Bormann wrote:
> Pcapng is a format different from pcap.
> It’s a bit like IPv4 and IPv6.
And like IPv4 and IPv6, which happen to share TCP and UDP and therefore a
port number registry... pcap and pcapng share a linktype registry.
--
Michael Richardson. o O ( IPv6 IøT
On 26. Oct 2021, at 15:44, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> That's being done by the pcap document.
> (It could be done by a third document, but that seems wasteful)
It seems appropriate to have a third document.
I don’t see the waste, only process improvement.
Grüße, Carsten
Guy Harris wrote:
> I would vote for "both should point to a common location" so that
> neither the pcap nor the pcapng spec says "there is *the* list of
> link-layer types" - it points to a registry, and as more types are
> added to the registry, more specs can be published
Qin Wu wrote:
> I am not against this draft. I am just thinking whether Independent
> submission stream process is a better choice for this document in the
> first round when WG and IESG have no change control to this work. Upon
> this work get published as RFC
>
> I have no idea what a second round would be.
> The pcap format needs to be published only once.
>
> [Qin Wu] My impression is that pcap will be the first and pcapng will derive
> from it. Maybe I am wrong, I am not clear
> the relation between these two.
These are independent formats that
-邮件原件-
发件人: Carsten Bormann [mailto:c...@tzi.org]
发送时间: 2021年10月26日 15:18
收件人: Guy Harris
抄送: Qin Wu ; opsawg@ietf.org
主题: Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap-02
On 26. Oct 2021, at 09:00, Guy Harris wrote:
>
> I would vote for "both should point
On 25/10/2021 18.27, Michael Richardson wrote:
On 2021-10-20 12:40 p.m., Michael Richardson wrote:
On 2021-10-04 4:00 p.m., Henk Birkholz wrote:
Dear OPSAWG members,
this starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap-02
-邮件原件-
发件人: Carsten Bormann [mailto:c...@tzi.org]
发送时间: 2021年10月26日 14:35
收件人: Qin Wu
抄送: opsawg@ietf.org
主题: Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap-02
Hi Qin,
On 26. Oct 2021, at 03:43, Qin Wu wrote:
>
> I am not against this draft. I am just thinking w
On 26. Oct 2021, at 09:00, Guy Harris wrote:
>
> I would vote for "both should point to a common location" so that neither the
> pcap nor the pcapng spec says "there is *the* list of link-layer types" - it
> points to a registry, and as more types are added to the registry, more specs
> can
On Oct 25, 2021, at 11:34 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> No document here has to wait for any other document to be published.
Currently:
draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap-02 contains its own list of values for the
LinkType field in the file header;
draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng-02 points
; Carsten Bormann ;
> j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de; vladi...@lightside-instruments.com;
> war...@kumari.net; ie...@btconnect.com; a...@research.att.com
> 主题: Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap-02
>
> On 2021-10-20 12:40 p.m., Michael Richardson wrot
-university.de; vladi...@lightside-instruments.com;
war...@kumari.net; ie...@btconnect.com; a...@research.att.com
主题: Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap-02
On 2021-10-20 12:40 p.m., Michael Richardson wrote:
> On 2021-10-04 4:00 p.m., Henk Birkholz wrote:
>> Dear OPSAW
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email concludes the call for Working Group Adoption on
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap-02.
We received a minimal amount of positive replies, no objections, and a
few elaborate comments.
The chairs believe this I-D is ready for
On 2021-10-25, at 18:27, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> On 2021-10-20 12:40 p.m., Michael Richardson wrote:
>> On 2021-10-04 4:00 p.m., Henk Birkholz wrote:
>>> Dear OPSAWG members,
>>>
>>> this starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
>>>
On 2021-10-20 12:40 p.m., Michael Richardson wrote:
On 2021-10-04 4:00 p.m., Henk Birkholz wrote:
Dear OPSAWG members,
this starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap-02
ending on Monday, October 18th.
+1.
On 20.10.21 22:44, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On 2021-10-20, at 22:22, Henk Birkholz wrote:
this email *extends* the ongoing call for Working Group Adoption on
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap-02 until
*Sunday, October 24th*.
I believe WG time spent to get an
+1
/js
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 10:44:37PM +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On 2021-10-20, at 22:22, Henk Birkholz
> wrote:
> >
> > this email *extends* the ongoing call for Working Group Adoption on
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap-02 until
> > *Sunday,
On 2021-10-20, at 22:22, Henk Birkholz wrote:
>
> this email *extends* the ongoing call for Working Group Adoption on
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap-02 until
> *Sunday, October 24th*.
I believe WG time spent to get an authoritative description of this widely
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email *extends* the ongoing call for Working Group Adoption on
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap-02 until
*Sunday, October 24th*.
We did not reach a critical mass of positive replies - as a result, I'll
grant a grace period until the
On 2021-10-04 4:00 p.m., Henk Birkholz wrote:
Dear OPSAWG members,
this starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap-02
ending on Monday, October 18th.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/4Cvm_msdnORHMUY3kbyCV6dbGyI
On Oct 4, 2021, at 1:00 PM, Henk Birkholz
wrote:
> this starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap-02
>
> ending on Monday, October 18th.
There's one small change that should be made to clarify the format of the last
This document is intended to be Informational.
One thing that I'd like the WG to consider is whether it should go straight
to Historical. (There is precedent)
This document needs to go through IETF consensus in order to be able to
create the IANA registries that pcapng needs.
[ps: I hate the
Dear OPSAWG members,
this starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap-02
ending on Monday, October 18th.
As a reminder, this I-D describes the current definition of the PCAP
format that has been the industry's de-facto packet
30 matches
Mail list logo
