From: Michael Tuexen <michael.tue...@lurchi.franken.de> Sent: 29 December 2022 17:13
> On 29. Dec 2022, at 17:45, tom petch <ie...@btconnect.com> wrote: > > From: Carsten Bormann <c...@tzi.org> > Sent: 29 December 2022 13:20 > > 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. > > <tp> > The underlying question is what is the point of this IANA registry? > > 1) Duplicate the contents of the tcpdump website so that there are two > sources of information which differ slightly and so make it unclear as to > which is right? > > 2) Replace the tcpdump website with one that does not include any of the many > URLs that the tcpdump website and so is not so useful? > > 3) Augment the tcpdump website with some additional linktypes but without > indicating where the tcpdump website is the authoritative source? The plan is to move the registry from the tcpdump website to IANA and use the currently defined values at the tcpdump website as the initial value for the IANA table. Once this is done, the table hosted at the IANA website will be the only source of truth for this registry. Does this make the intention clearer? <tp> Yes, that is clear; I do not see any such statement in the I-D. It also seems to be a giant leap backwards. The tcpdump website has a mass of useful information, 150 or so links to the reference documents for the link protocols that it references which could be useful outside the context of tcpdump, while the I-D, and I assume the IANA registry, has not one, not single reference - to me that is, well, a giant leap backwards. Tom Petch Best regards Michael > > I do not know. Hence oppose adoption. > > Tom Petch > > 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 _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
