[pcap-ng-format] Is there a reason to keep PCAP-DumpFileFormat.xml around?

[Jasper Bongertz]

I don't think we need to PCAP-DumpFileFormat.xml anymore. Maybe it
would be a good idea to have the version at

https://www.winpcap.org/ntar/draft/PCAP-DumpFileFormat.html

replaced with the more current draft version, too (or pointing to it).

Friday, August 21, 2015, 12:32:02 AM, Guy Harris wrote:

> I gave a quick check, and it's mostly the same as the first version
> of draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng.xml, with a few typos that were fixed
> in the first version of draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng.xml, and some
> formatting changes such as handling the reference to RFC 2119 a little differently.

> All the work is being done on draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng.xml;
> nobody's checked in any changes to PCAP-DumpFileFormat.xml since 2014-06-29 07:31:56 UTC.

> Is there any reason to keep PCAP-DumpFileFormat.xml around?

> Should we have something to make it clear that the correct document
> is draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng.xml, not PCAP-DumpFileFormat.xml?
> _______________________________________________
> pcap-ng-format mailing list
> pcap-ng-format at winpcap.org
> https://www.winpcap.org/mailman/listinfo/pcap-ng-format



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3681 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://www.winpcap.org/pipermail/pcap-ng-format/attachments/20150821/50688631/attachment-0001.bin>