Thanks, Michael. Yes, I said something similar to Benoît on our call yesterday. In your opinion, is the PCAP document in a state where it can WGLC? And if so, do you think one of the NG authors might serve as a shepherd?
Joe From: Michael Richardson <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 at 20:12 To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Moving forward with draft-ietf-opsawg-pcapng (and draft-ietf-opsawg-pcap) Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, authors. Benoît and I were going through the current WG docs, > and we want to refresh our memories (and get a read on your bandwidth) > with respect to these two documents. With linktypes moving through > IESG (and requirement some feedback-related changed), how do you want > to proceed with these two? pcap first as Historical. Should be non-controversal as long as people understand that we can't change it... Then pcapng^Wecap.
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
