Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: IETF standard? [was Re: pcapng options]
From: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen () lurchi franken de>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 19:34:03 -0400
On Nov 2, 2012, at 7:19 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 11/02/2012 12:03 PM, Guy Harris wrote:On Nov 2, 2012, at 6:47 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc () petit-huguenin org> wrote:But I think that this kind of redundancy, that can only create interoperability issues or security vulnerabilities, should not appear in a newly designed file format.It's not exactly "newly-designed" - I have a mail message from 2005 discussing a pcap-ng draft, so it's over 7 years old (it's from February 2005).Is there a process existing to evolve this format?Discussions are held on the pcap-ng-format mailing list: https://www.winpcap.org/mailman/listinfo/pcap-ng-format (and that's where the discussion of opt_endofopt should probably move - it's already been discussed there).Thanks, I was not aware of this list - I'll continue the discussion there.The spec has been written with IETF tools, but I cannot find a submission for it.It hasn't been submitted; I presume the intent was to do so when it was considered "ready".I can help navigate the IETF process if there is an interest in pushing this spec as a standard. I think that this is typically the kind of thing that can be improved by the reviews from IETF members,Yes, but...and IANA is a good place for the various registries required....I'm less sure of that. One of the registries is the LINKTYPE_ registry (the current version of the spec enumerates LINKTYPE_ values, but that should be replaced with "see http://www.tcpdump.org/linktypes.html), and I'm not sure whether the IETF should own that registry or notThe spec was looking as it was not up to date, that's why I proposed that (e.g. I could not find link type 220).- what would the process for getting new LINKTYPE_ values be if it were to be owned by the IETF?There is various possibilities, from defined in a Standard Track RFC, to FCFS, with the possibility to even have different assignment constraints, e.g. a range Standard Track, a range FCFS, and another range for experimental and private assignment). See RFC 5226 for details.
Not sure if there is a WG for it... But one could try an Informational RFC... I'm not sure if the authors want to go through the IETF process, at least they were not a couple of years ago, when I suggested the same. If there is some interest in bringing this to the IETF, I would be more than happy to help. Best regards Michael
- -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Email: marc () petit-huguenin org Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJQlFUUAAoJECnERZXWan7EOJwP/3bbG6oHXHLg9ax51N+zHckE ZLK88X5PUYVUxFeIVHwYtcPUybxHAvApd+/Ue0QkBTcglRMrAD7H/B5nrUkb0ZMS vKI+W6iFOyGMyeh6fIg71zoZOSEB/NyVIPngXGidzJQJg5t5RjG65cw0GFiaxxQv LXCcDX+pm/rsRgobsrf5XnIDd5ZgU4rNWdaFuveBUs9uF2xcXmT2N5f05QOCgP6C dENO7Xykn/dKzALiCZp9to21Uo1dccJy4SyL3UcRtHBXlLrfkotm4Ug8Iouyfv+A gEsfLbVHqrPXlhAFBNuvP4f5N8b9XonYKbAky5QCkOY6uTjiOz3ysKosfi8NJHMr ZATr9l+5DoNi6hv6LMqXmk+VI4sKb5Cvq4vjrLpQm8/3sVrlNhbrOXS6ni+K8Y6v R12L2wYLeByvvldxYtwckpUfywZPnBDRUunvYPdL2fecKbcpr7Sa4Mu6xIXOl8V9 3TPXEF/UCLcs9eXxJ07oDs7TIfzhhMVFdEWbgjpSJ8257brlIs5QTXsAQgEqN2Gl lKw7Mi1HE6xDnfb0eRvgqTUbUQzpmfA15EMDNb0FWp85VLyAZiQh6udgrqeCCtMh yX5BkQLM3YwFY/QzTI7LHTq1Pkyc6Omr7khYKt3Y8P1ZeBvQ6KV1K5265j1Vkdml dYklFi220luGS5uV6HXP =BG5v -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- pcapng options Marc Petit-Huguenin (Nov 01)
- Re: pcapng options Richard Sharpe (Nov 01)
- Re: pcapng options Guy Harris (Nov 01)
- Re: pcapng options Jasper Bongertz (Nov 02)
- IETF standard? [was Re: pcapng options] Marc Petit-Huguenin (Nov 02)
- Re: IETF standard? [was Re: pcapng options] Guy Harris (Nov 02)
- Re: IETF standard? [was Re: pcapng options] Marc Petit-Huguenin (Nov 02)
- Re: IETF standard? [was Re: pcapng options] Michael Tuexen (Nov 02)
- Re: pcapng options Guy Harris (Nov 01)
- Re: pcapng options Richard Sharpe (Nov 01)