[pcap-ng-format] Issue #23: Need to determine how to assign new Block Types/Option Codes in future

[Michael Tuexen]

> On 24 Aug 2015, at 17:42, Hadriel Kaplan <the.real.hadriel at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Michael Tuexen <tuexen at wireshark.org> wrote:
>> That was originally the plan. I think it might be hard to get this document
>> through the OPSWG, but we can use the individual track... It we still
>> want to go down this route, I can write up an initial version of the
>> IANA Considerations section. What do you think?
> 
> Why would it be hard to get through OPSAWG? I listened to the audio
> recording of the WG session when you presented the draft, and the
> feedback sounded positive, even from the WG chairs.  No?  Did one of
> the ADs not like the idea?
I don't think that they don't like it. The concern was if the *WG* has
the people to provide substantial review. And while trying to find people,
I often ended up in people being interested, but not necessarily active
in the IETF. That is why the suggestion came up to improve the document
in whatever way we can do and submit it for publication as an individual
document.

I really would like to progress the document and to get it stable.
But it needs a couple of people to work together to get it done
providing a reasonable quality. This is work happens within the
IETF, fine. If it happens on this mailing list with a github
repo, fine too.

Best regards
Michael
> 
> -hadriel
> _______________________________________________
> pcap-ng-format mailing list
> pcap-ng-format at winpcap.org
> https://www.winpcap.org/mailman/listinfo/pcap-ng-format
>