Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> wrote: > There is only one point that I consider at a level of DISCUSS - the Change > Authority. I believe, IESG/IETF cannot be the change authority for > allocations that are being grandfathered-in from open source projects > (e.g., libpcap, tcpdump, etc.). IESG/IETF will also not like to be the > change controller for new allocations - that should be the person(s) > requesting the allocation. Refer > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html#section-2.3 - someone from the > IANA team can correct me if I'm wrong.
Hi, I have added a column, Change Controller. please see: https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/draft-ietf-opsawg-pcap/pull/194/files The Tcpdump Group is not a legal entity (at least, not at this time). There is no succession plan, no governance, no way to appeal. Who would The Tcpdump Group designat as controller? Is there a conflict of interest concern with the DEs? (I don't know) The DE's serve at the whim of the IESG. If you want to empower The Tcpdump Group, then just pick some people who are involved... https://github.com/the-tcpdump-group/tcpdump/blob/master/CREDITS many of these people credited also wrote RFCs that defined the protocols that they then dissected.... > The other non-blocking comment is that Link Type value be made the first > entry in the registry table for ease of use. You'd like LinkType Value to be first. Okay. > On the matter of DE guidance, this is something that I will leave to the > WG. My apologies for not being able to come up with a more concrete > suggestion for what seems to rely a lot on the DE's discretion. It's a 16-bit registry with less than 1% allocated over ~30 years. I don't see a landrush coming :-) -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
