Re: New official link-layer type request

[Damir Franusic <damir.franusic () gmail com>]

Hi

I used I-D since It's still work in progress. And yes, I also looked at pcapng and assumed I couldn't go wrong with 
following those guideline s. I've never written an RFC or I-D so using pcapng draft seemed like a good starting point.

I plan to document the SCTP part also and when it's all done, I would lilke to eventually get it published as an RFC. 

You can link it to the draft for now, and I will continue to update it. When the time comes and I'm satisfied will the 
final version, I will let you know. You know a lot about this RFC process than I do.

Thank You again for all the help

On May 12, 2019 11:00:16 PM GMT+02:00, Guy Harris <gharris () sonic net> wrote:
> On May 12, 2019, at 1:48 PM, Damir Franusic <damir.franusic () gmail com>
> wrote:
>
> > That would be great thanks. That's all I ever wanted really, but now
> I understand the relevance of having a proper I-D.
>
> It will also be useful for documenting the protocol when run over SCTP.
>
> Are you planning on running the protocol through the IETF standards
> process:
>
>       https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/
>
> or did you just use the I-D format for convenience (or because that's
> how the pcapng spec is being done - we may submit it as an I-D at some
> point)?
>
> > And yes, you are correct regarding the Header/PDU; quite simple.
>
> Great - thanks!  So shall we link to that draft, for now?

-- 
Damir Franusic

http://socket.hr
http://github.com/dfranusic
_______________________________________________
tcpdump-workers mailing list
tcpdump-workers () lists tcpdump org
https://lists.sandelman.ca/mailman/listinfo/tcpdump-workers