IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [babel] info-model: message log

Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> Thu, 03 January 2019 19:09 UTC

Return-Path: <jch@irif.fr>
X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EDFE131270 for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 11:09:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zr1fG0FV10Ca for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 11:09:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 633CB13126F for <babel@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 11:09:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/82085) with ESMTP id x03J8vbf026431; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 20:08:57 +0100
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C68193FBA1; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 20:09:02 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id fogIi5AEn-gX; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 20:09:00 +0100 (CET)
Received: from pirx.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B339C3FB9E; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 20:09:00 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2019 20:09:00 +0100
Message-ID: <87muohlfsj.wl-jch@irif.fr>
From: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>
To: Markus Stenberg <fingon@kapsi.fi>
Cc: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>, Babel at IETF <babel@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <5720979F-C0D2-4291-B4D6-653B28E77D4B@kapsi.fi>
References: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DF65C81@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <87efa9legt.wl-jch@irif.fr> <A52325B6-59E8-433A-8670-DA943B5DAD90@gmail.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DF7E186@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <87tviplm17.wl-jch@irif.fr> <5720979F-C0D2-4291-B4D6-653B28E77D4B@kapsi.fi>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Thu, 03 Jan 2019 20:08:57 +0100 (CET)
X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5C2E5DC9.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)!
X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5C2E5DC9.000 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/<jch@irif.fr>
X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5C2E5DC9.000 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000
X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/zfPd2lQnw9zJVWdDmgYg4zG2Gwk>
Subject: Re: [babel] info-model: message log
X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." <babel.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/babel/>
List-Post: <mailto:babel@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2019 19:09:10 -0000

> I vote one format for implementation simplicity.  I do not really know
> which one.

pcap is much simpler.

pcapng supports nanosecond timestamps, comments, vendor-defined TLVs, and
bidirectional scanning.  While it looks reasonably easy to generate, it's
a little more challenging to parse in its full generality.  Heck, even
Wireshark doesn't :-/

(Note that picking a dump format doesn't mean we can parse it -- there's
the small matter of the encapsulation used, which could be 802.2,
radiotap, raw IPv6, or something else.  Do we need to specify that?)

-- Juliusz

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email