Re-,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Michael Richardson
> Envoyé : lundi 6 mai 2024 12:18
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET ;
> opsawg@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] advancing PCAP drafts
>
>
> {please ignore unicast messag
{please ignore unicast message I sent thirty seconds ago}
mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
> I think that it would be useful to have a new column to easily tag the
> status of an assignment. Deprecated ones can be marked as such using
> that new column, instead of having this in
bjet : Re: [OPSAWG] advancing PCAP drafts
>
>
> mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
> > However, I checked
> >
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2
> Fauthor-tools.ietf.org%2Fapi%2Fiddiff%3Fdoc_1%3Ddraft-ietf-
> opsawg-
mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
> However, I checked
>
https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/iddiff?doc_1=draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype_2=https://IETF-OPSAWG-WG.github.io/draft-ietf-opsawg-pcap/draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype.txt
> and I'm afraid that your main copy override many
On Apr 25, 2024, at 1:02 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
>> -Message d'origine-
>> De : Guy Harris
>> Envoyé : jeudi 25 avril 2024 09:53
...
>> The changes I see from that link are:
>>
>> 1) an unreadable table becomes readable, which is presumably
>> what "fixing a
Hi Guy,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Guy Harris
> Envoyé : jeudi 25 avril 2024 09:53
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET
> Cc : Michael Richardson ; opsawg@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] advancing PCAP drafts
>
>
> O
On Apr 25, 2024, at 12:04 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
> Other than fixing a bug in Table 3.1, I thought that we were close to the
> WGLC.
>
> However, I checked
>
on' ; opsawg@ietf.org
> Objet : RE: [OPSAWG] advancing PCAP drafts
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Thanks for the follow-up.
>
> Please see inline.
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
> > -Message d'origine-
> > De : Michael Richardson Envoyé :
> mercredi 31
> &g
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the follow-up.
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Michael Richardson
> Envoyé : mercredi 31 janvier 2024 15:10
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET ;
> opsawg@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] advancing PCAP drafts
>
On 31.01.2024 15:10, Michael Richardson wrote:
I don't know if ISE documents can create registries: one ISE told me no.
See RFC 8726. DR not permitted unless it's a required sub-registry
tied to a requested allocation.
Eliot
OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc
Description: OpenPGP public
mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
> Hmm...I remember at least the following candidates changes from that
> thread, e.g.,
> *
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/u0__66zIpCMHA4syzt8fWtyx98Y/
> *
>
the right thing. Thanks.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Michael Richardson
> Envoyé : lundi 20 novembre 2023 14:14
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET ;
> opsawg@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] advancing PCAP drafts
>
>
> mohamed.boucad...@oran
mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
> Noted for the second point. However, I think there is more than
> mirroring the table. I remember that we discussed deprecating values
> (?) and ensuring some consistency for future assignments vs. the
> historic range.
In what way is the
ichael Richardson
> Envoyé : vendredi 17 novembre 2023 14:56
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET ;
> opsawg@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] advancing PCAP drafts
>
>
> mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
> >> draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype - Standards Track to cr
Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> Carsten Bormann wrote:
I thought that we agreed that this justification for PS is not
accurate (1): "linktypes "highest" level is Specification
Required". A better reason should be provided.
>>
>>> The draft doesn’t just register
On 2023-11-17, at 14:51, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
>
> Guy Harris wrote:
>>> draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype - Standards Track to create Registry
>
>> Presumably the registry will contain more information than is in that
>> I-D, or links to more information, as what's in
On 2023-11-17, at 14:57, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>
> Carsten Bormann wrote:
>>> I thought that we agreed that this justification for PS is not
>>> accurate (1): "linktypes "highest" level is Specification Required". A
>>> better reason should be provided.
>
>> The draft doesn’t just
Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> I thought that we agreed that this justification for PS is not
>> accurate (1): "linktypes "highest" level is Specification Required". A
>> better reason should be provided.
> The draft doesn’t just register in that registry, it creates a registry.
mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
>> draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype - Standards Track to create Registry
> I thought that we agreed that this justification for PS is not accurate
> (1): "linktypes "highest" level is Specification Required". A better
> reason should be provided.
Eliot Lear wrote:
> I'd like to see these docs advance as well. My only question is whether
the
> pcapng doc should be a Proposed Standard.
I started with that belief.
Overtime, people have complained that the format is not what the IETF would
do if it started today. And, did we
Guy Harris wrote:
>> draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype - Standards Track to create Registry
> Presumably the registry will contain more information than is in that
> I-D, or links to more information, as what's in the I-D is insufficient
> to describe the formats of packets for
gt; De : Carsten Bormann
> Envoyé : vendredi 17 novembre 2023 09:43
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET
> Cc : Michael Richardson ; opsawg@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] advancing PCAP drafts
>
> On 2023-11-17, at 09:30, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
> >
>
On Nov 17, 2023, at 12:30 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
>> draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype - Standards Track to create Registry
>
> I thought that we agreed that this justification for PS is not accurate (1):
> "linktypes "highest" level is Specification Required". A
On 2023-11-17, at 09:30, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
>
>> draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype - Standards Track to create Registry
>
> I thought that we agreed that this justification for PS is not accurate (1):
> "linktypes "highest" level is Specification Required". A better reason should
ardson
> Envoyé : mercredi 15 novembre 2023 10:34
> À : opsawg@ietf.org
> Objet : [OPSAWG] advancing PCAP drafts
>
>
> Hi, the three PCAP I-Ds have been stable for sometime now.
>
> draft-ietf-opsawg-pcap-03- going to Historic.
> draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype - Standard
I'd like to see these docs advance as well. My only question is whether
the pcapng doc should be a Proposed Standard.
Eliot
On 15.11.2023 10:33, Michael Richardson wrote:
Hi, the three PCAP I-Ds have been stable for sometime now.
draft-ietf-opsawg-pcap-03- going to Historic.
On Nov 15, 2023, at 1:33 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Hi, the three PCAP I-Ds have been stable for sometime now.
...
> draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype - Standards Track to create Registry
Presumably the registry will contain more information than is in that I-D, or
links to more
Hi, the three PCAP I-Ds have been stable for sometime now.
draft-ietf-opsawg-pcap-03- going to Historic.
draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype - Standards Track to create Registry
draft-ietf-opsawg-pcapng-01 - going to Informational.
Can we WGLC them, and find shepherds for them?
--
Michael
28 matches
Mail list logo
