In some email I received from Carter Bullard, sie wrote:
>
> Thanks Darren,
> I was wondering about that. RFC 1761 is pretty
> old and has only been referenced once (RFC2626) to
> mention its Y2.038K problem (outside of the standard
> list of Official Standards and request for comment RFCs).
>
> Since the only packet capture technology mentioned in
> recent RFC's has been tcpdump, I was thinking about
> tackling the informational model by talking about tcpdump.
> Hmmmm, ....., a comparison between snoop and tcpdump
> may work as tcpdump does improve on the file format and the
> information for each packet. I could then present that
> we need to add the source identifier to the mix to make it
> work for remote packet capture.
>
> Does that sound like it would work?
Yup, that sounds good.
Three has also been some email on this list, recently, about
extending the format used by tcpdump to save packet captures.
If you're going to do the RFC-thing, I'd encourage you to look
at those emails and consider whether or not there is something
there for you to add in.
Darren
-
This is the TCPDUMP workers list. It is archived at
http://www.tcpdump.org/lists/workers/index.html
To unsubscribe use mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=unsubscribe
