IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG Adoption Call for draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap-02

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Tue, 26 October 2021 01:43 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
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 63D673A0E83 for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 18:43:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 1El-FfJAjpVi for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 18:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 010963A0E81 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 18:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml734-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.207]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4HdZJF3Pbvz67Ml8; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 09:39:57 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggeml702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.135) by fraeml734-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.215) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.15; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 03:43:09 +0200
Received: from dggeml753-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.152) by dggeml702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.135) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2308.15; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 09:43:07 +0800
Received: from dggeml753-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.1.199.152]) by dggeml753-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.1.199.152]) with mapi id 15.01.2308.015; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 09:43:07 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>
CC: "lear@cisco.com" <lear@cisco.com>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, "j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de" <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, "vladimir@lightside-instruments.com" <vladimir@lightside-instruments.com>, "warren@kumari.net" <warren@kumari.net>, "ietfc@btconnect.com" <ietfc@btconnect.com>, "acm@research.att.com" <acm@research.att.com>
Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG Adoption Call for draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap-02
Thread-Index: AdfKCkCiyKgDIjdnRIKPCZTuyMd5JQ==
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2021 01:43:07 +0000
Message-ID: <7f7e591e1f7f41eb9b6717c9dc1f6075@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.136.123.117]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/wur9Cv_8cd81oMXjz0uW7mhzuBQ>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG Adoption Call for draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap-02
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: Tue, 26 Oct 2021 01:43:18 -0000

I am not against this draft. I am just thinking whether Independent submission stream process is a better choice for this document in the first round when WG and IESG have no change control to this work.
Upon this work get published as RFC (https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/independent/), bisdocument can go through WG submission process, if my understanding is correct.

-Qin
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Michael Richardson [mailto:mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca] 
发送时间: 2021年10月26日 0:28
收件人: opsawg@ietf.org
抄送: lear@cisco.com; Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>; Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>; Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>; j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de; vladimir@lightside-instruments.com; warren@kumari.net; ietfc@btconnect.com; acm@research.att.com
主题: Re: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG Adoption Call for draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap-02

On 2021-10-20 12:40 p.m., Michael Richardson wrote:
> On 2021-10-04 4:00 p.m., Henk Birkholz wrote:
>> Dear OPSAWG members,
>>
>> this starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap-02
>>
>> ending on Monday, October 18th.
> 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/4Cvm_msdnORHMUY3kbyCV6dbG
> yI is a very long thread about adoption from November 2020.
> 
> There were many suggestions at the time from many people on the CC.
> 
> It would be great if you could comment on the current plan.
> 

A number of you spoke up last week about pcapng in this thread.
Can you clarify if your support was for the pcapng only document, or for both pcap and pcapng?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email