Re: [Qlog] qlog in pcap-ng format

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 10 May 2021 14:45 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E20A3A1F4D; Mon, 10 May 2021 07:45:15 -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 N24HNYskmkRU; Mon, 10 May 2021 07:45:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CDC23A1F3F; Mon, 10 May 2021 07:45:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 827521857B; Mon, 10 May 2021 10:54:01 -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 mnhzX5DPEBhK; Mon, 10 May 2021 10:54:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A58C180B1; Mon, 10 May 2021 10:54:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 543867B7; Mon, 10 May 2021 10:45:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Robin MARX <robin.marx@uhasselt.be>
cc: qlog@ietf.org, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Qlog] qlog in pcap-ng format
In-Reply-To: <CAC7UV9bYq6=oGRmf0tywmjSXTBuTPdj9phpAvTk3G-DHdtYSBg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <32242.1620502978@localhost> <CAC7UV9bYq6=oGRmf0tywmjSXTBuTPdj9phpAvTk3G-DHdtYSBg@mail.gmail.com>
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: Mon, 10 May 2021 10:45:06 -0400
Message-ID: <29437.1620657906@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/_esrAtmMgWG82ylazuMWParJLWw>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 14:45:15 -0000

Robin MARX <robin.marx@uhasselt.be> wrote:
    > I agree there is significant overlap between PCAP and qlog conceptually
    > (though I did not know pcap was actually considered for adoption at the
    > IETF).

Please note that pcap (legacy) is intended as Informational.
PCAP-NG (I hate "NG" for a format that is now 10 years old!), is intended as
Standards Track.

    > However, from my understanding, the PCAP format is strongly oriented

Your understanding is accurate for PCAP, but not for PCAP-NG.
If I had a do-over, PCAP-NG would have been pure-CBOR.

    > Finally, I've added the QUIC wg in CC, as that's where most of the
    > work/discussion will likely be done in the future.

Then, I suggest maybe the qlog ML should get killed, if you want discussion
on the QUIC list.

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