Hi Michael, Thank you for fixing this.
FWIW, I created a PR that you can see at: https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/draft-ietf-opsawg-pcap/pull/154/files. Please grab whatever you think useful out there. I think that it would be useful to have a new column to easily tag the status of an assignment. Deprecated ones can be marked as such using that new column, instead of having this in the description. For the DE guidance, I'm afraid that the first part of your text is redundant with what is already in 8126, especially this part: For the Specification Required policy, review and approval by a designated expert (see Section 5) is required, and the values and their meanings must be documented in a permanent and readily available public specification, in sufficient detail so that interoperability between independent implementations is possible. I think that you can reuse most of the text at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9445#name-guidelines-for-the-designat Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Michael Richardson <m...@sandelman.ca> > Envoyé : vendredi 26 avril 2024 21:14 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> > Cc : opsawg@ietf.org > Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] advancing PCAP drafts > > > mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: > > However, I checked > > > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 > Fauthor-tools.ietf.org%2Fapi%2Fiddiff%3Fdoc_1%3Ddraft-ietf- > opsawg-pcaplinktype%26url_2%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2FIETF-OPSAWG- > WG.github.io%2Fdraft-ietf-opsawg-pcap%2Fdraft-ietf-opsawg- > pcaplinktype.txt&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C > 26eac497038c49be9e0d08dc66250bb2%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d > 20%7C0%7C0%7C638497556498067781%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiM > C4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C% > 7C%7C&sdata=vvCk3DYritUqEttLZS%2BjnOXfYF2p7eqjPFHjzmcvYT0%3D&rese > rved=0 > > and I'm afraid that your main copy override many changes > agreed in the > > past. May be I'm not looking in the right branch? > > There is definitely a failure on my part to git push after the > last posting. > Guy then patched somethings, and I've just dealt with the > conflict. > Trailing periods on a bunch of entries. > type 209, name changed. > Some line wrapping changes too. > > The table got broken in -02, sorry about that. > > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 > Fauthor-tools.ietf.org%2Fapi%2Fiddiff%3Fdoc_1%3Ddraft-ietf- > opsawg-pcaplinktype-01%26url_2%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252FIETF-OPSAWG- > WG.github.io%252Fdraft-ietf-opsawg-pcap%252Fdraft-ietf-opsawg- > pcaplinktype.txt&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C > 26eac497038c49be9e0d08dc66250bb2%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d > 20%7C0%7C0%7C638497556498078518%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiM > C4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C% > 7C%7C&sdata=KGLwhQ%2FjVG31N2RAY0sXpgRhRTSKRhEq8rg9jKPmb4Y%3D&rese > rved=0 > > might be a better diff. I will post -03 now. > > Let me paste in here the Designated Expert advice. > What do you think about sentence two? We aren't telling them not > to accept specifications that are hard to get at, but rather to > maybe push a bit for something more accessible. > > # Guidance for Designated Experts > > When processing a request for a Specification Required allocation > the Designated Experts are expected to be able to find the > relevant specification at a clearly stable URL. > It is noted that many enterprise web sites do not maintain URLs > over a long period of time, and a documented in a "wp-uploaded" > section is highly likely to disappear. > In addition Specifications that require a reader to click through > any kind of marketing or legal agreement are not considered > public. > (This is the opinion of other corporate lawyers, who worry about > what their employees might have agreed to) > > The specification needs to be clearly written, and when the > contents of the link type can contain an IPv4 or IPv6 header, > then the octets between the beginning of the link type and the IP > header needs to be very clearly specified in that document. > > Specifications which are not publically available, but which may > be obtained via liason agreements (such as to ITU-T, 3GPP, IEEE, > etc.) are acceptable particularly if the document will be public > eventually, but are discouraged. > For other documents, the Designated Expert will need use their > judgement, or consult the WG or an Area Director. > > Linktypes may be allocated for specifications not publically > available may be made within the First-Come/First-Served area. > This includes specifications that might be classified. > The minimal requirement is for a contact person for that link > type. > ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
