On Apr 10, 2025, at 10:23 AM, Joe Clarke (jclarke)
<[email protected]> wrote:
> In going through the shepherd write-up requirements, I note a few NITs in
> this document. The most correctable one is to remove the 2119 boilerplate
> and reference as this document doesn’t make use of any normative text.
That has been done in the version in
https://ietf-opsawg-wg.github.io/draft-ietf-opsawg-pcap/draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype.html
> As for the references to obsolete RFCs (1483 and 2625), I think they should
> stay as those are existing (legacy) usages of the linktypes registry.
> Updating those may have unintended consequences if one assumes aspects of
> MPEoATM or IP and ARP oFC in the newer RFCs that do not apply to the usages
> of the linktypes. But I want to confirm with the authors.
The reference to RFC 2625 has been removed from the version munitioned above
instead, the reference is now to
https://www.tcpdump.org/linktypes/LINKTYPE_IP_OVER_FC.html
which 1) refers to RFC 4338 and 2) indicates the section that shows what the
packets for link-layer type LINKTYPE_IP_OVER_FC look like.
Thank you for pointing out RFC 1483; LINKTYPE_ATM_RFC1483 should have the same
thing done, so that the tcpdump.org page can 1) refer to RFC 2684 and 2) point
to the relevant section, section 5 "LLC Encapsulation".
If there are any other nits that you would like fixed, please let me know.
> And, as I stated before, I would like authors to confirm they are willing to
> be authors.
I've replied to that in a response to the email in which you stated that.
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
