I am not against this draft. I am just thinking whether Independent submission stream process is a better choice for this document in the first round when WG and IESG have no change control to this work. Upon this work get published as RFC (https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/independent/), bisdocument can go through WG submission process, if my understanding is correct.
-Qin -----้ฎไปถๅไปถ----- ๅไปถไบบ: Michael Richardson [mailto:mcr+i...@sandelman.ca] ๅ้ๆถ้ด: 2021ๅนด10ๆ26ๆฅ 0:28 ๆถไปถไบบ: opsawg@ietf.org ๆ้: l...@cisco.com; Toerless Eckert <t...@cs.fau.de>; Qin Wu <bill...@huawei.com>; Carsten Bormann <c...@tzi.org>; j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de; vladi...@lightside-instruments.com; war...@kumari.net; ie...@btconnect.com; a...@research.att.com ไธป้ข: Re: [OPSAWG] ๐ WG Adoption Call for draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap-02 On 2021-10-20 12:40 p.m., Michael Richardson wrote: > On 2021-10-04 4:00 p.m., Henk Birkholz wrote: >> Dear OPSAWG members, >> >> this starts a call for Working Group Adoption of >> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap-02 >> >> ending on Monday, October 18th. > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/4Cvm_msdnORHMUY3kbyCV6dbG > yI is a very long thread about adoption from November 2020. > > There were many suggestions at the time from many people on the CC. > > It would be great if you could comment on the current plan. > A number of you spoke up last week about pcapng in this thread. Can you clarify if your support was for the pcapng only document, or for both pcap and pcapng? _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
