Robert –
My experience with Wireshark does not match yours.
In my experience, packet decoders aren’t always up on the latest spec revisions
– it is always a catchup game – but it isn’t true that only values from an IANA
registry are displayed.
And from an implementation standpoint, the
Hi Les,
I would like to share my personal experience that when debugging network
issues say using wireshark or tcpdump often dissectors only decode what is
in IANA registry. Anything beyond they print as hex.
Sure if someone needs to decode it he or she will find an RFC where all
fields are
Alvaro -
Thanx - as always - for the thoughtful response.
I would like to state up front that I would never consider you to be a "casual
reader".
I am also glad you are opening this topic up to comments from others - that was
my intent as well.
But one thing I find missing in your
On March 11, 2021 at 5:46:51 AM, Peter Psenak wrote:
Peter:
Hi!
> thanks for the review, please see inline (##PP):
It looks like you didn't get the whole review (Outlook bug). Take a
look at it here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/a4a4I4fP73DyfKsdKnRw_tRuStQ/
...
> > Just one
On February 27, 2021 at 12:57:12 PM, Les Ginsberg wrote:
Les:
Hi!
Sorry for the delay...
§4/rfc8126 presents some general arguments for creating registries.
But let's talk about this specific case.
I'm taking the liberty of summarizing your message this way:
> Historically, we have created
Ketan:
Hi!
I’m ok with your responses — I think we’re good to go.
Thanks!
Alvaro.
On March 9, 2021 at 12:42:21 PM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote:
> I will wait for your responses on a few of the points before
> posting the draft update.
___
Lsr mailing
