Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng-02.txt

[Michael Tuexen <[e-mail]>]

> On 30. Sep 2020, at 04:14, Qin Wu <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi, two Michaels:
> Can you clarify what functionalities is missed for more modern applications? Since it is enhancement to libpcap, do you expect all the 
The file format is extensible and allows to include packets from multiple interfaces
not having the same physical layer. I can also contain information not related to
a particular packet like how many packets where dropped between two packets, how
many packets where dropped on which interface during capturing, which capture
filters where used, ...

I guess this kind of information could be added to the abstract of the document.
> future packet capture tools support the format defined in this draft?
For Wireshark it is the default.

Best regards
Michael
> 
> -Qin
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: OPSAWG [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Michael Richardson
> 发送时间: 2020年9月29日 4:31
> 收件人: Michael Tuexen <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Jasper Bongertz <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Fulvio Risso <[e-mail]>; Guy Harris <[e-mail]>; Gerald Combs <[e-mail]>
> 主题: Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng-02.txt
> 
> 
> Michael Tuexen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> [e-mail] wrote:
>>>> Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng-02
>>> 
>>> Hi, I have converted the xml to markdown.
> 
>> Why? If we want to publish this, it will be published in xmlv3. So
>> better to use that format earlier...
> 
> It's so so so much easier to maintain and update and get contributions.
> github will render it directly....
> 
> If you object strongly, we can stick to XML.
> 
>>> The results in the diff are okay, but actually the conversion is not
>>> complete as I cheated and left the tables as preformatted figures, and
>>> there are many internal references that I have no yet updated.
>>> 
>>> The xml file had a long list of URLs as references, many of which were
>>> duplicated.  I will be going through and fixing those in the next week
>>> or so.
>>> 
>>> This work has been discussed on and off in OPSAWG, but at this point I
>>> am going to suggest that the document just go through the Independant
>>> Submission Editor.
> 
>> Do we want to finally publish that? Up to now, I think the point was to
>> find a home where it is substantially discussed and improved...
> 
> If we can get OPSAWG to adopt it, great.
> I'm just not holding my breath.
> 
> --
> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
> ]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [
>