[OPSAWG]Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype-12: (with COMMENT)

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Michael,

Thanks for your quick reply and the proposed changes.

I will let the responsible AD sort out the publication status.

About IANA, I am unsure whether I have seen a FCFS registry with expert review, but happy to stand corrected.

Regards

-éric

On 10/10/2025, 20:50, "Michael Richardson" <[e-mail]> wrote:
Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
    > ## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

    > ### Why informational ?

    > The shepherd write-up is rather silent on the intended status of informational
    > as it seems to me that proposed standard would be a better fit.

Informational Seems wrong.
I see that the document declares that, and I think that's a copy'n'paste mistake.
It should be std.  At one point, we were told that only IETF-stream STD could
create certain categories of registry, and that's why we couldn't go ISE.

    > Moreover, draft-ietf-opsawg-pcapng has, rightfully, a normative reference to a
    > previous version (draft-richardson-opsawg-pcaplinktype) of this I-D, i.e., this
    > creates a downref.

Fixed in my copy.

    > ### Abstract

    > An abstract should be short of course, but this one is a little too short: why
    > not adding reference (expansion at least) for PCAP. It also uses the word
    > "describes", which is correct for an informational I-D, even if it actually
    > "specifies" the value, i.e., why not 'proposed standard' ?

I'm not sure PCAP still has an expansion, but I've expanded it to "Packet
CAPture".  How about:

  This document describes a set of Packet CAPture (PCAP)-related LinkType values and
  creates an IANA registry for those values.
  These values are used by the PCAP and PCAP-Now-Generic specifications.

    > ### Section 2

    > As I spotted only one use of BCP14 (moreover in an informational I-D) in
    > section 3.2 (IANA considerations), please remove this section. See also
    > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-the-use-of-bcp-14-key-words/
    > about the use of BCP14 terms in IANA considerations.

fixed.

    > ### Section 3.2.2

    > Per section 4.2 of RFC 8126, there is no designated expert for a FCFS registry,
    > i.e., remove this section or change the registry policy to 'expert review'.

So, we want FCFS with Expert Review.