IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSAWG] Red: RFC8907 (was: Re: Can we please adopt draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng?)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 13 November 2020 00:54 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B5153A11A8 for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 16:54:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 PPJu26FGzbRe for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 16:54:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 587583A11A6 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 16:54:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26951389CE for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 19:55:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id U-wt_WsZ3Bbq for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 19:55:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74A65389B4 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 19:55:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 848B0AB5 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 19:54:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <EF3EB8B3-3ABF-4854-95DB-49BDB6C953BD@deployingradius.com>
References: <20201111080817.g4oc75o5ufwtxd5p@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <873CA76D-E744-45CA-A82C-1228798619CB@tzi.org> <20201111092125.GF39343@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <079EB1DE-694E-403B-A9C5-F4ECD28DBC59@cisco.com> <20201111150739.GG39343@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <e195e3de-5d4a-8416-7e36-c17cec32af03@gmail.com> <9215_1605164101_5FACDC45_9215_16_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933031578800@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <758CFA2F-E353-409D-987C-000C23EA0EC3@tzi.org> <22094_1605167175_5FACE847_22094_64_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933031578836@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <9C197251-812E-4687-A585-4EF8B702E466@cisco.com> <20201112220244.GD39343@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <EF3EB8B3-3ABF-4854-95DB-49BDB6C953BD@deployingradius.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 19:54:52 -0500
Message-ID: <3903.1605228892@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/FEBSA6fWaILLqQ9jYbSxskhbrRI>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Red: RFC8907 (was: Re: Can we please adopt draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng?)
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 00:54:57 -0000

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> wrote:
    >> (or who read THEDRAFT), but i remember older RFCs that clearly state when a protocol
    >> is a proprietary vendor protocol not developed by the IETF. I think this RFC should
    >> have done it too for clarity. BY not writing it clearly, it looks like a particular
    >> vendor endorsement by IETF in an inappropriate fashion.

    > That's a reasonable point.  But the doc is "Informational", and the
    > protocol has a 20+ year history.  So it's pretty clear where it came
    > from.  And, that documentation does not imply endorsement.

Hi, so PCAPNG does not have a 20+ year history.  More like 6-8 year.
*PCAP* does have ~30 year history.

MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acm@research.att.com> wrote:
    > I have a suggestion:  the pcapng work proposal goes forward as *two drafts*:

    > 1. a draft intended as an Independent Submission RFC to describe
    > pcapng/2010 *as-is*.

That would be draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap-00, and I will bring it to ISE.
If this WG would prefer to adopt is as a set, that's fine with me.
There are IANA Registries that could move around.

    > 2. a proposal for a WG draft, to collect all the new/good ideas while
    > (probably) maintaining backward compatibility with pcapng/2010 and the
    > utilities that read/write it.

That would be draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng-02

    > The WG helps prepare *both* drafts, but when 1. is deemed complete and
    > accurate it heads off to the Independent Stream.

    > I have zero skin in this game, except that I capture packets whenever I need to...

I have this image of Cookie Monster.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email