I apologize for my previous mail, issues with email client. What I wanted to ask is whether I should name the draft like this:
draft-dfranusic-tsvwg-elee-00 Thanks, -- Damir Franusic http://socket.hr http://github.com/dfranusic On May 17, 2019 8:29:34 PM GMT+02:00, Damir Franusic <damir.franu...@gmail.com> wrote: >Hi Guy > >I have a question regarding the target working group. Since this is a >Link Layer transport protocol >for Lawful Interception Data which can also use SCTP for transport, >should I use the following naming >scheme**instead:***draft-dfranusic-**tsvwg-00 * > > >What you you suggest? > >* >* > >On 5/15/19 9:08 AM, Damir Franusic wrote: >> Hi Guy >> >> I just made a little TOC change in the draft but that's all. Version >00 is there and you can link it and it with a new LINKTYPE_ELEE. >> >> >http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/cgi-bin/xml2rfc.cgi?url=http://socket.hr/draft-dfranusic-elee-00.xml&modeAsFormat=html/ascii >> >> >> 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? _______________________________________________ tcpdump-workers mailing list tcpdump-workers@lists.tcpdump.org https://lists.sandelman.ca/mailman/listinfo/tcpdump-workers
