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

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On 2020-11-13, at 07:18, Eliot Lear <lear=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> bureaucratic process

The discussion is really frustrating.

Lots of people who can point to other specifications and how they were handled in a way that was appropriate to those specifications.  Thank you all for pointing to those examples; we learned some interesting history.

But pcapng simply is a different case.

Before insisting that pcapng is exactly like your favorite specification and therefore MUST be handled exactly like that, please do listen to the people here explaining why that is not so.

There is no *real* issue with picking up pcapng as a standards-track specification.  We sure can invent some issues here, but the fact that unrelated specification X was handled in way Y successfully doing a different process is getting boring quickly; it’s simply not relevant.  The fact that we would probably design this differently a decade later is interesting, but again no reason to not go ahead with a standards-track specification with a view to not breaking things.

I’m not going to comment on Toerless’ tangent that picking up a specification that is already in real-world use might require tying up the IESG in a promise not to actually review the WG result properly.  (Yes, I’m feeling with you about the ANIMA email address issue.)  But no, tying up the IESG in a corner is not a requirement for working on pcapng, and that tangent is not a useful discussion either.

Grüße, Carsten