On 10/10/25, 14:50, "Michael Richardson" <[email protected]> wrote:
Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> ## COMMENTS (non-blocking)
> ### Why informational ?
> The shepherd write-up is rather silent on the intended status of
informational
> as it seems to me that proposed standard would be a better fit.
Informational Seems wrong.
I see that the document declares that, and I think that's a copy'n'paste
mistake.
It should be std. At one point, we were told that only IETF-stream STD could
create certain categories of registry, and that's why we couldn't go ISE.
[JMC] Yes, I think this is a byproduct of how the document evolved both itself
and with PCAP and PCAPng. Given the registry, yes, PS is probably a better
choice. I can update the shepherd write-up.
Joe
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
