Thanks, Joe, for confirming what was my belief too on the discussion of keeping this document informational.
Eric, are you ok with the rational, or do you still feel the document needs to be updated to a PS? > On Oct 11, 2025, at 10:51 AM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: Friday, October 10, 2025 at 17:49 > To: Michael Richardson <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, Eric > Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, The IESG > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype-12: > (with COMMENT) > > > > On 10/10/25, 14:50, "Michael Richardson" <[email protected] > <mailto:[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. > > [JMC2] I went back to 2022/2023 to refresh my memory on this. There was > discussion from mcr that linktypes should be PS to provide the necessary > registry. Med replied he didn’t think it was so. Mcr replied that as Info, > the registry would only be able to provide up to Specification Required > (though my read of 8126 is different here, and would allow up to IETF > Review). Med then replied, “OK, thanks. Publishing the doc as Info would be > OK then.” I didn’t see any other replies to this point (thread: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/dUiGXuCnMwvzAJLuMcheGXA-MUM/ > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/dUiGXuCnMwvzAJLuMcheGXA-MUM/>). > > [JMC2] Given that, unless there is a need for higher-level review for > registry entries, it seems Info is still okay. > > Joe Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
