Re: [OPSAWG] [pcap-ng-format] draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap.txt --- IANA considerations

Adrian Farrel <> Tue, 22 December 2020 20:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E43073A12A0 for <>; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 12:45:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.894
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kj6bTNGWGRfI for <>; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 12:45:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 860D03A129F for <>; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 12:45:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 0BMKioKL000743; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 20:44:50 GMT
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E252D220C8; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 20:44:47 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA647220CC; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 20:44:47 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 0BMKik1G014211 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Dec 2020 20:44:46 GMT
Reply-To: <>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <>
To: "'Michael Richardson'" <>, <>
Cc: "'Guy Harris'" <>, "'Pcap-ng file format'" <>, <>, "'tcpdump-workers'" <>, <>
References: <12531.1608597102@localhost> <> <31379.1608601870@localhost> <> <31989.1608654962@localhost> <4017_1608663192_5FE24098_4017_165_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315A11F3@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <12816.1608665791@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <12816.1608665791@localhost>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 20:44:46 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <027701d6d8a3$494054f0$dbc0fed0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQKP57Qi7p3dpGJlobHfmKUQOtvy7gJMj+6fA4ZrBKgDuyZ3CQLujbu8AinypmECsDcmDagGuO3w
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--15.576-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--15.576-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--15.575900-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: IeZYkn8zfFpor4mPA3EMtguB7zdAMUjA6uVri61Nit+CJfy6H3J77G4F lM3eSv+GjJ4OLUvA2dkroMYlp9N4132ZhguUFexU+s0+QZYAcN/e+NLQ743ftUdlXjCOq/DIIyc cKU/UgpvdDx8BgLrMbDgAPjStZV7w7ABo0upccSrCtSG/SQAC8X+ogtHzaKWZt3N4VV+Pddkqj+ dewI0EtmGXsR4VNcSOHwNj4EEDwRslVaqTQ2WNXE5fxQhMok8ej0jXY9STMgFffSkyb6LPSOtJb 0z5oGlqe24RaIShkJvkdejbbduhhkRV7C9ojOZ1TT9ZveSPAxU7IFMOvFEK2DMuZvSXaS5wVXFz 93jC3xdfjVRau+agtAwAQfYxWaW11fU93/NXnnmQmLXB14cW2lQQ0EgzIoPRqr3CBdU3C2A8MTV 2fOp72O1mQHs4dcugco1P+zTcFruZrzm56RA43PRUId35VCIeIWnK2PB3w5VtpkxrR+BG1tcs0w ICPh+kA3udUsggTqwa89shmY6JncUn0T3ftbzOD2tWc5ns1rY5iooXtStiHiTTaB3/Mlz+boTtH +AM3ii4AD6q03Pj+W4K2+aLnDsyTLqNERrS1GsRgc884o1LVdi3t9406Kzmn7jOJQ+rgvFnjpT1 yjWv6rIx42x/2b/rxFF0Y1nkV3JWEzeKEpBGg9MJkd+MUUHPYu1jAfiXSs4IPuuOlevAyg5dNgv J7+7bSffyyA9zUfmxP5AAO+MxMupJ5YNV2Tp2MQ+jvdpgdP/LgmK091nmTePy36DpwzQitf2Gcy rOX7tcpdpxSArXPc7AVBl2o8p0Bn8OdLSxNCyeAiCmPx4NwFkMvWAuahr8pDAocW2DiN4MyrfP9 j+C1d934/rDAK3zhG2qikEpQGWco0ZPzlEbhrNrYwBKxyjvscZuysr0726enbyPhtkY2JsEJxTS lYWl
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [pcap-ng-format] draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap.txt --- IANA considerations
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 20:45:04 -0000


I'm pitching in here as Independent Submissions Editor (ISE). I really should use the proper email for this ( but I'm sticking with this address as it is already subscribed to the OPSAWG list.

Responding to this particular email because (I think) it is the first one that mentioned me by name.

Let's take a few things:

1. Find out more about the Independent Submissions Stream by looking at and reading the referenced RFCs.

2. Michael is right that RFC 8726 will govern how I handle drafts that make requests for IANA action. Precedent will not carry any weight: 8726 describes the process in place at the moment.

3. While it *is* true that 8726 describes situations under which IANA registries can be created by Independent Submission Stream documents, be aware that the conditions are very limited. Also be aware that the assignment policies that you can set for such registries are also very limited.

4. The Independent Submissions stream is not a short-cut to RFC publication. If there is a proper home within the IETF then that path must be followed. If the IETF process is not functioning to your satisfaction, then you need to work with the IETF processes to resolve that issue.

A previous email on this thread said...

>> So, for FCFS, does that mean anybody who wants a linktype can just grab one?
> Yes, but it's not quite the free-for-all one might imagine.
> They have to email IANA and there are some records kept.
> IANA does do some amount of abuse control.

FWIW, you can impose a little bit of control by specifying a form that must be used to make a FCFS request to your registry.

> I've re-read RFC8726, in case we want to send pcap via the ISE, as OPSAWG is
> very slow to adopt documents.   The short of it is that we *CAN* create
> Registries on the Independent Stream Editor Q.
> But, we can not create Specification Required registries as that requires
> assignment of Designated Experts.  FCFS streams are fine.
> Options are there:
>  1) get OPSAWG to adopt this document.
>  2) ask an AD to sponsor the document.
>  3) not split the Registry as per above, use FCFS for it all.
>  4) move the LinkType Registry to pcapng, send pcap via ISE as
>     Informational (might get hung up waiting for pcapng, however, depending
>     upon how we write the text, and whether or not it results in a MISREF)

I strongly suggest that you pursue options 1 and 2 because the work appears to be in scope for the OPS Area.
If the OPSAWG declines to adopt the work, and if you can find no AD to sponsor the draft, then it is worth coming to the ISE (me). Additionally, in the (very unlikely) event that progress is procedurally blocked and appeals are not producing results, I can also consider publication.

Obviously, as already noted, if the document does wind up with the ISE:
- IANA actions will need to conform to 8726
- normative references will need to be cleared before an RFC can be published

Independent Submissions Editor (ISE)

    >> -----Message d'origine-----
    >> De : OPSAWG [] De la part de Michael
    >> Richardson
    >> Envoyé : mardi 22 décembre 2020 17:36
    >> À : Guy Harris <>
    >> Cc : Pcap-ng file format <>rg>;
    >>; tcpdump-workers <>
    >> Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] [pcap-ng-format] draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap.txt
    >> --- IANA considerations
    >> But, we can not create Specification Required registries as that
    >> requires assignment of Designated Experts.

    > [Med] I'm not sure if the rules changed since then, but experts can be
    > designated for registries created by ISE documents. See for example:

Well, this document is ten years ago, and RFC8726 is Nov. 2020, and I think
that the confusion on this question is what generated the need for RFC8726.

Adrian: wrt:

Michael Richardson <>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide