On 2022-12-29, at 12:55, tom petch <ie...@btconnect.com> wrote: > > The linktype I-D is defective with its documentary references so the > website is going to be as well. The number of references for links is > considerable in the I-D although none appear as references of the I-D as > anyone familiar with the work of the IETF would expect.
Hmm. The registry has four columns, of which the fourth is the "document/requestor reference" column. The draft does not say, but to me implies, that this column will be populated with a reference to the linktypes RFC for all rows in the initial set. Iβm no quite sure what Tom is trying to say with βThe numberβ¦β but it would be good to have references to the documents that supply further information (say, what βIEEE 802.3 Ethernetβ really is). Having these listed at "http://www.tcpdump.org/linktypes.htmlβ is fine with me; this will allow updates to the document references as these tend to shift over time. Having them added in the fourth column of the IANA registry is also fine, but sounds a bit like busywork to me. All this editorial work can be done after adoption by the working group. Re the pcapng document itself, Iβm not sure that Figure 3 to 6 should really use bit tick marks (+-+-+), as these seem to be multi-byte passages shown as if they were three (or four to six) bits each. It has been a couple of years since I reviewed a version of this document, and Iβd rather have the iddiff bugs fixed before I re-review the current version, but Iβm quite confident that we can fix the remaining problems in normal WG work (of which there will be some β no, Iβm not responding to a WGLC here). So, repeating and updating my affirmative response from 2021-10-20 [1]: +1 from me for adopting both documents. GrΓΌΓe, Carsten [1]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/8BEuzv9VaDs_RIantEPKRGtK-KE _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
