[pcap-ng-format] [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng-02.txt

[Michael Richardson]

Michael Tuexen <tuexen at fh-muenster.de> wrote:
    > Without OPSWG...

Yup.

    >>> Why? If we want to publish this, it will be published in xmlv3. So
    >>> better to use that format earlier...
    >>
    >> It's so so so much easier to maintain and update and get
    >> contributions.  github will render it directly....
    >>
    >> If you object strongly, we can stick to XML.
    > I'm just trying to figure out what we will do with the document in the
    > near future.

    > I think we will not get it adopted in OPSWG.

    > If we want to publish it soon, I would be willing to double check it
    > and clean it up, make it such that xml3 is used appropriately and send
    > it off to the RFC editor.

    > If we want to keep it living at GitHub and not do the RFC publishing
    > soon, than Markdown might be the better choice.

kramdown has become very popular.  It renders really nice to XML.
I suggest we go the ISE direction, but continue to discuss it on OPSAWG.

    >> If we can get OPSAWG to adopt it, great.  I'm just not holding my
    >> breath.

    > I don't think this works out. But we can publish it anyway. We just
    > need to figure out what we want...

ISE will work, and it lets us create IANA Registries.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr at sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.winpcap.org/pipermail/pcap-ng-format/attachments/20200928/d7661c44/attachment-0001.sig>