IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 27 October 2021 21:06 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 BDF533A148B for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 14:06:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 XjnkDuoX1eEs for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 14:06:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B37243A1488 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 14:06:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9B9818020; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 17:07:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id GTpZ78lgXVVI; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 17:07:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5C041801B; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 17:07:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3965844F; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 17:06:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <0AC13B5E-33C2-4B0D-97C0-7B9D15964534@tzi.org>
References: <7f7e591e1f7f41eb9b6717c9dc1f6075@huawei.com> <219E4A85-1EC0-400C-B1E2-E0DF0F218C83@tzi.org> <BF225900-039A-41C8-8F6F-C221298BDB28@sonic.net> <21319.1635255873@localhost> <3C416295-EBD4-4099-9000-BE686810A4C6@tzi.org> <26565.1635270361@localhost> <14654.1635274637@localhost> <0AC13B5E-33C2-4B0D-97C0-7B9D15964534@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 17:06:24 -0400
Message-ID: <21492.1635368784@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/yKF99GbcdaRJeYw-hcoEEwHGcEY>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] đź”” 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: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 21:06:33 -0000

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
    >> On 26. Oct 2021, at 20:57, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> Here is an example of a LINKTYPE that would be very difficult to explain if
    >> it weren't in the context of a pcap/pcapng file.

    > …
    >> LINKTYPE_USB_LINUX_MMAPPED	220
    >> USB packets, beginning with a Linux USB header, as specified by the
    >> struct usbmon_packet in the Documentation/usb/usbmon.txt file in the
    > …

    > Whether that is a good registry entry is for the designated expert (DE)
    > to decide, not for the IESG.

The document in question would have to establish the history of the entries.
The IESG will ask questions about this part.  It will happen.

    > The third document would establish the registry and maybe provide a few
    > entries so the IESG has some examples to look at.

Not a few entries, all of the history of them.

    > Loading that registry is then done via IANA and the DE.

No, that's now how it's worked in the past, and now what IANA told me.

    >> Maybe we can eliminate all of the pcap->pcapng normative references.

    > Yes, please!

    > (Having a normative reference to a HISTORIC document is a bit weird, anyway.)

I don't see why.

anyway, if the WG wants to go this way, then I'd ask the chairs to judge.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email