Ketan Talaulikar has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype-14: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to the authors and the WG for their work on this document. I support it and have a few items that I would like to discuss. Note: updating my ballot for the v14 of the document. 2) The registry is missing the Change Controller column and filing that is a bit tricky. I believe none of the initial allocations have the IETF as the change controller since it comes from the tcpdump/pcap open source code. As such, perhaps that open source project (or the lead developer/maintainer(s) for it) should become the Change Controllers? Update for v14: IETF/IESG can be change controller for the "reserved" or "private use" portions but not for anything else since those other allocations are described via IETF consensus RFCs. The change controllers for those need to be the individuals doing the allocations in my original DISCUSS comment above. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to the authors and the WG for their work on this document. The following comments still remain in the v14 of the document. 4) Should the "LinkType Value" not be the first registry column which is the codepoint to be allocated? This will help organize the registry correctly as the "index"? 5) There should be also a Change Controller column in the registry. This is particularly important since this is largely FCFS and this is where a "requester" from outside the IETF will be identified. An implication arising out of this is that it seems like for most of the initial assignments done in this document, the Change Controller is not really IETF but the tcpdump open source implementation? 7) On the DE guidance, I will defer to the WG since I am unable to suggest a good enough text for the same. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
