> -----Original Message----- > From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E > Carpenter ... > tom petch wrote: > > That is why i would like to see if there is a form of adopting this > > document under > > specific premises / constraints for acceptable changes > > [Suppressed scream.] That is *exactly* the semantic of an Independent > Submission RFC. > > Fine, if OPSAWG wants to waste its own time, and that of the IESG, and the > whole IETF during Last Call, in debating editorial details of a document > whose technical content cannot change, feel free to go ahead, but count me > out of it; I'm sending the thread to /dev/null for now. > > Brian > [acm]
I have a suggestion: the pcapng work proposal goes forward as *two drafts*: 1. a draft intended as an Independent Submission RFC to describe pcapng/2010 *as-is*. 2. a proposal for a WG draft, to collect all the new/good ideas while (probably) maintaining backward compatibility with pcapng/2010 and the utilities that read/write it. The WG helps prepare *both* drafts, but when 1. is deemed complete and accurate it heads off to the Independent Stream. I have zero skin in this game, except that I capture packets whenever I need to... Al _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
