Dear all,
Let me introduce this brand new draft.
Feel free to provide your feedback on the list.
I requested a slot to present it during the meeting slot.
Regards, Benoit (on behalf of the authors)
On 10/25/2021 3:36 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
A new version of I-D, draft-claise-opsawg
On 2021-10-20 12:40 p.m., Michael Richardson wrote:
On 2021-10-04 4:00 p.m., Henk Birkholz wrote:
Dear OPSAWG members,
this starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap-02
ending on Monday, October 18th.
https://mailarchive.ie
Hi Gyan,
Thank you very much for your review and feedback!
I have added reference to STAMP and RESTCONF as you suggested.
I'm a little confused by the difference between OAM-based ping and non
OAM-based ping. Could you please elaborate on this?
Please also note that we don't intend to provide a
I support the adoption of this draft as well as the pcap draft. My
presumption is that we will memorialize pcap and further work might be
done on pcapng.
On 21.10.21 21:51, Michael Richardson wrote:
Carsten Bormann wrote:
> While the original pcap format has held up very well over time,
On 2021-07-11 8:21 p.m., internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group
WG of the IETF.
Title : Operational Considerations for use o
On 2021-10-25, at 18:27, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> On 2021-10-20 12:40 p.m., Michael Richardson wrote:
>> On 2021-10-04 4:00 p.m., Henk Birkholz wrote:
>>> Dear OPSAWG members,
>>>
>>> this starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
>>>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ghar
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email concludes the call for Working Group Adoption on
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap-02.
We received a minimal amount of positive replies, no objections, and a
few elaborate comments.
The chairs believe this I-D is ready for adopti
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email concludes the call for Working Group Adoption on
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng-03.
We did not reach a critical mass of positive replies, but there were
also no objections, and various elaborate comments (in addition to
variou
Michael Richardson wrote:
> On 2021-07-11 8:21 p.m., internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> directories. This draft is a work item of the Operations and
>> Management Area Working Group WG of the IETF.
>
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group
WG of the IETF.
Title : PCAP Capture File Format
Authors : Guy Harris
Michael
I am not against this draft. I am just thinking whether Independent submission
stream process is a better choice for this document in the first round when WG
and IESG have no change control to this work.
Upon this work get published as RFC
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/independent/), bisdocu
Hi Qin,
On 26. Oct 2021, at 03:43, Qin Wu wrote:
>
> I am not against this draft. I am just thinking whether Independent
> submission stream process is a better choice for this document
I’m not sure which “this document” you are discussing here, as Michael asked
about both pcap and pcapng.
Le
12 matches
Mail list logo
