> On 26. Oct 2021, at 20:57, Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> wrote: > > > Here is an example of a LINKTYPE that would be very difficult to explain if > it weren't in the context of a pcap/pcapng file.
β¦ > LINKTYPE_USB_LINUX_MMAPPED 220 > USB packets, beginning with a Linux USB header, as specified by the > struct usbmon_packet in the Documentation/usb/usbmon.txt file in the β¦ Whether that is a good registry entry is for the designated expert (DE) to decide, not for the IESG. The third document would establish the registry and maybe provide a few entries so the IESG has some examples to look at. Loading that registry is then done via IANA and the DE. If the policy is βspecification requiredβ, the existing I-D + a filled in web form at iana.org may be all that is needed to do that. > I was assuming that pcap and pcapng would wind up with normative references > to each other, and wind up going through the RFC editor queue together. I hope we can avoid that. > Maybe we can eliminate all of the pcap->pcapng normative references. Yes, please! (Having a normative reference to a HISTORIC document is a bit weird, anyway.) GrΓΌΓe, Carsten _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
