Guy Harris wrote:
> The table in the website has longer descriptions for some types than
> does the I-D. For example, LINKTYPE_NULL has a more detailed
> description on the website:
I think it's better to reference the web site, and we have expanded many
entries, such as:
On Jan 2, 2023, at 2:52 AM, tom petch wrote (about the
pcaplinktype I-D):
> The authors of the I-D have carried across the descriptive text from the
> website some of which I see as of poor quality and have not carried across
> the references to the specifications of the links most of which
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email concludes the 2nd call for Working Group Adoption on the
bundle of
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng-05.html and
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-richardson-opsawg-pcaplinktype-01.html.
Looking back on both WGLCs, we received a
On 8 Dec 2022, at 21:34, Henk Birkholz wrote:
> Dear OPSAWG members,
>
> this starts a Working Group Adoption call for a bundle of two documents:
>
>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng-05.html
>>
From: Michael Tuexen
Sent: 31 December 2022 18:19
> On 31. Dec 2022, at 13:09, tom petch wrote:
>
> From: Michael Tuexen
> Sent: 30 December 2022 14:48
>> On 30. Dec 2022, at 12:41, tom petch wrote:
>> From: Michael Tuexen
>> Sent: 29 December 2022 17:13
>>
>>
>> Yes, that is clear; I do
From: Michael Richardson
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2022 22:17
To: tom petch; Michael Tuexen; opsawg
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng-05 and
draft-richardson-opsawg-pcaplinktype-01
> The I-D lacks much useful information compared with the tcpd
From: Carsten Bormann
Sent: 31 December 2022 15:00
On 2022-12-31, at 13:09, tom petch wrote:
>
> The I-D lacks much useful information compared with the tcpdump website which
> you say this replaces
I read Michael’s response as a promise to do the necessary work.
(If he doesn’t keep the
Carsten Bormann wrote:
> More fundamentally, I’m having a problem with arguments of the form
> “The website did such a good job we can’t move the registration
> function to IANA”. (If we have a problem with IANA registrations, we
> should identify it and address it.)
Thank you
> The I-D lacks much useful information compared with the tcpdump website
> which you say this replaces, notably the references that the website
> links to for the various llnk specifications.. Given the inadequacy of
> the references in the I-D (setting aside those related to
> On 31. Dec 2022, at 13:09, tom petch wrote:
>
> From: Michael Tuexen
> Sent: 30 December 2022 14:48
>> On 30. Dec 2022, at 12:41, tom petch wrote:
>> From: Michael Tuexen
>> Sent: 29 December 2022 17:13
>>> On 29. Dec 2022, at 17:45, tom petch wrote:
>>> From: Carsten Bormann
>>> Sent: 29
On 31.12.22 16:00, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On 2022-12-31, at 13:09, tom petch wrote:
The I-D lacks much useful information compared with the tcpdump website which
you say this replaces
I read Michael’s response as a promise to do the necessary work.
(If he doesn’t keep the promise, we can
On 2022-12-31, at 13:09, tom petch wrote:
>
> The I-D lacks much useful information compared with the tcpdump website which
> you say this replaces
I read Michael’s response as a promise to do the necessary work.
(If he doesn’t keep the promise, we can always fail WGLC.)
More fundamentally,
From: Michael Tuexen
Sent: 30 December 2022 14:48
> On 30. Dec 2022, at 12:41, tom petch wrote:
> From: Michael Tuexen
> Sent: 29 December 2022 17:13
>> On 29. Dec 2022, at 17:45, tom petch wrote:
>> From: Carsten Bormann
>> Sent: 29 December 2022 13:20
>> On 2022-12-29, at 12:55, tom petch
> On 30. Dec 2022, at 12:41, tom petch wrote:
>
> From: Michael Tuexen
> Sent: 29 December 2022 17:13
>
>> On 29. Dec 2022, at 17:45, tom petch wrote:
>>
>> From: Carsten Bormann
>> Sent: 29 December 2022 13:20
>>
>> On 2022-12-29, at 12:55, tom petch wrote:
>>>
>>> The linktype I-D is
From: Michael Tuexen
Sent: 29 December 2022 17:13
> On 29. Dec 2022, at 17:45, tom petch wrote:
>
> From: Carsten Bormann
> Sent: 29 December 2022 13:20
>
> On 2022-12-29, at 12:55, tom petch wrote:
>>
>> The linktype I-D is defective with its documentary references so the
>> website is
> OPSAWG on behalf of Henk Birkholz
> writes:
> Not Ready
That wasn't the question Tom. This is not a WGLC. This is a WG adoption call.
by replying, I think you have indicated that you are interested in the WG
taking on this work?
> The linktype I-D is defective with its
> On 29. Dec 2022, at 17:45, tom petch wrote:
>
> From: Carsten Bormann
> Sent: 29 December 2022 13:20
>
> On 2022-12-29, at 12:55, tom petch wrote:
>>
>> The linktype I-D is defective with its documentary references so the
>> website is going to be as well. The number of references for
From: Carsten Bormann
Sent: 29 December 2022 13:20
On 2022-12-29, at 12:55, tom petch wrote:
>
> The linktype I-D is defective with its documentary references so the
> website is going to be as well. The number of references for links is
> considerable in the I-D although none appear as
On 2022-12-29, at 12:55, tom petch wrote:
>
> The linktype I-D is defective with its documentary references so the
> website is going to be as well. The number of references for links is
> considerable in the I-D although none appear as references of the I-D as
> anyone familiar with the
From: OPSAWG on behalf of Henk Birkholz
Sent: 08 December 2022 20:34
Dear OPSAWG members,
this starts a Working Group Adoption call for a bundle of two documents:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng-05.html
>
> On 29. Dec 2022, at 12:18, Henk Birkholz
> wrote:
>
> Hi Tom,
> Hi Michael,
> hi all,
>
> thanks for your help!
>
> As I am continuously challenged by reading my own calendar properly, replies
> for this Working Group Call for Adoption may drizzle in until Monday (and
> then some, as I am
Hi Tom,
Hi Michael,
hi all,
thanks for your help!
As I am continuously challenged by reading my own calendar properly,
replies for this Working Group Call for Adoption may drizzle in until
Monday (and then some, as I am not sure how many folks will look at this
on Jan 1st). In essence, we
> On 8. Dec 2022, at 21:34, Henk Birkholz
> wrote:
>
> Dear OPSAWG members,
>
> this starts a Working Group Adoption call for a bundle of two documents:
>
>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng-05.html
>>
From: OPSAWG on behalf of Henk Birkholz
Sent: 08 December 2022 20:34
Dear OPSAWG members,
this starts a Working Group Adoption call for a bundle of two documents:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng-05.html
>
> On 8. Dec 2022, at 21:34, Henk Birkholz
> wrote:
>
> Dear OPSAWG members,
>
> this starts a Working Group Adoption call for a bundle of two documents:
>
>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng-05.html
>>
Dear OPSAWG members,
this starts a Working Group Adoption call for a bundle of two documents:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng-05.html
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-richardson-opsawg-pcaplinktype-01.html
ending on Monday, December 30th.
As a recap: we
26 matches
Mail list logo
