Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for posting an update. You beat me to the update. I was hoping > for the discussion to settle down and see an updated version that > captured all the discussion. Well …
Okay. I wish you'd said this earlier :-) please see: https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/draft-ietf-opsawg-pcap/pull/195/files I can post -17 if this satisfies you. > Besides these editorial changes, I am hoping for a resolution on the following points. > 1. Consistency > - The description of the LinkType Registry talks about 4 items per entry. They are: > - LinkType Name > - LinkType Value > - Description > - Reference > The initial version of the table in Section 2.2.1 shows: > - Name > - Number > - Description > - Reference okay, I've renamed the initgial version file "stanzas" (note it's presented this way because a table did not fit, and IANA suggested thisA) We changed the order of the table from Name/Value -> Value/Name. I have not changed the order in initial value stanzas, as there are many of them, and we've departed from the .csv file and scripts at this point... > Can these be made consistent? > 2. I would have deferred the definition of Change Controller to Section > 2.3 of RFC8126. As is, the definition is incomplete. So you want me to say: * Change Controller: as per {{RFC8126, Section 2.3}} > 3. In reading Section 2.3 of RFC8126, there seems to be some > flexibility on who is the Change Controller for entries that are being > grandfathered vs new entries. I see that the document now calls out > [email protected] for entries that are grandfathered. Thanks for > adding that. okay. > 4. Guy had suggestion for registration that do not have a reference. In > particular, if there is no document, can the email address for the > person who requested the LinkType be added? That's the intention for all new entries. > I believe that is captured > in Section 2.2.2 of the document which is somewhat misplaced as the > Section Title is “Guidance for Designated Experts”, says "The minimal > requirement is to provide a contact person for that link type.” I think > what was intended was “contact information for a person”, not just > “contact person”, or better still “email address of the person”. I have changed it to say: The minimal requirement is to provide a contact for that link type. 1. email addresses for the person can go stale. In fact, the person who registered the 23 JUNIPER ones (over a period of time), no longer works at Juniper. {A person who does has initiated an internal query} So while we have some additional information for some legacy allocations recorded in emails and in the libpcap/pcap.c file, I would be hesistant to put that into an RFC. 2. If we got a request from, say, the NSA, we would say yes. We might not be able to list more than "NSA, Fort Mead, Drone to Aircraft Division" (To make something up. Likely, it would be some contractor asking...) 3. Like, phone numbers are not yet obsolete :-) -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [ ] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [ -- 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]
