Hi I used I-D since It's still work in progress. And yes, I also looked at pcapng and assumed I couldn't go wrong with following those guideline s. I've never written an RFC or I-D so using pcapng draft seemed like a good starting point.
I plan to document the SCTP part also and when it's all done, I would lilke to eventually get it published as an RFC. You can link it to the draft for now, and I will continue to update it. When the time comes and I'm satisfied will the final version, I will let you know. You know a lot about this RFC process than I do. Thank You again for all the help On May 12, 2019 11:00:16 PM GMT+02:00, Guy Harris <ghar...@sonic.net> wrote: >On May 12, 2019, at 1:48 PM, Damir Franusic <damir.franu...@gmail.com> >wrote: > >> That would be great thanks. That's all I ever wanted really, but now >I understand the relevance of having a proper I-D. > >It will also be useful for documenting the protocol when run over SCTP. > >Are you planning on running the protocol through the IETF standards >process: > > https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/ > >or did you just use the I-D format for convenience (or because that's >how the pcapng spec is being done - we may submit it as an I-D at some >point)? > >> And yes, you are correct regarding the Header/PDU; quite simple. > >Great - thanks! So shall we link to that draft, for now? -- Damir Franusic http://socket.hr http://github.com/dfranusic _______________________________________________ tcpdump-workers mailing list tcpdump-workers@lists.tcpdump.org https://lists.sandelman.ca/mailman/listinfo/tcpdump-workers
