I have provided one comment in the PR. It relates to Section 3.2.2, second paragraph. Ketan has a DISCUSS, which should be addressed.
Thanks > On Nov 20, 2025, at 11:09 AM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Joe posted a formal call at: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/gmLguHReq94gnICl-NiNuVRgRZs/ > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/gmLguHReq94gnICl-NiNuVRgRZs/> > > Giving Nov.14 as the closing date for objections. > Chairs: will you consider the lack of comment = lack of objection? > > [JMC] As it stands now, both you and I (no hats) agree, but I am expecting > two more comments on-list by tomorrow. > > Joe > > https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/draft-ietf-opsawg-pcap/pull/192 > <https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/draft-ietf-opsawg-pcap/pull/192> > > What I see as my todo: > > Change: > * Values from 0 to 65000 are allocated following a First-Come First- > Served policy (Section 4.4 of [RFC8126]). Values in the ranges > 0-10, 50-51, and 98-301 are already assigned; values in the ranges > 11-49 and 52-97 are reserved and must not be assigned. > > to: > * Values from 0 to 65000 are allocated following an Expert Review > policy (Section 4.5 of [RFC8126]). Values in the ranges > 0-10, 50-51, and 98-301 are already assigned; values in the ranges > 11-49 and 52-97 are reserved and must not be assigned. > > and to put the Advice for Designated Experts back in: > > 3.2.2. Guidance for Designated Experts > > When processing a request for an allocation, the Designated Experts > will encourage the requester to provide a specification at a stable > URL. There is no requirement for a specification, but often review > of the specification allows the Designated Expert to determine if the > allocation actually is a duplicate of another specification. > > 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 clear. > > Specifications that are not publicly available, but which may be > obtained via liaison agreements (such as to ITU-T, 3GPP, IEEE, etc.) > are acceptable particularly if the specification document will be > public eventually, but are discouraged. For other documents, the > Designated Expert will need use their judgement, or consult the > OPSAWG or an Area Director. > > LinkTypes for which specifications are not publicly available may > have values allocated within the FCFS range. This includes > specifications that might be subject to a security classification. > The minimal requirement is to provide a contact person for that link > type. > > > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
