Hmm In wouldn't want to ask for a new group but from all the those groups, opsawg seems somehow appropriate, or maybe not? -- Damir Franusic
http://socket.hr http://github.com/dfranusic On May 17, 2019 10:26:42 PM GMT+02:00, Guy Harris <ghar...@sonic.net> wrote: >On May 17, 2019, at 11:34 AM, Damir Franusic <damir.franu...@gmail.com> >wrote: > >> 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 > >See > > https://www.ietf.org/standards/ids/guidelines/#7 > >If you're targeting this spec for the Transport Area Working Group, the >"tsvwg-" would be appropriate; however, the page for that working >group: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/tsvwg/about/ > >indicates that it's for things such as "Maintenance of the Stream >Control Transmission Protocol", not for all protocols that happen to >run on top of SCTP. > >Doing a Google search for > > "lawful intercept" site:ietf.org > >doesn't seem to indicate that there's one particular working group that >handles all lawful intercept issues, so you'd have to figure out the >appropriate WG yourself. _______________________________________________ tcpdump-workers mailing list tcpdump-workers@lists.tcpdump.org https://lists.sandelman.ca/mailman/listinfo/tcpdump-workers
