Re: [tcpdump-workers] New Version Notification for draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng-02.txt
--- Begin Message --- On Sep 28, 2020, at 12:06 PM, Michael Tuexen wrote: > Do we want to finally publish that? Up to now, I think the point was to > find a home where it is substantially discussed and improved... For example, unlike pcap, which is not easily changeable (you *can* change it, but that involves adding new magic numbers), pcapng can have new block types and option types. There are extensible protocols with RFCs; that's handled with protocol registries: https://www.iana.org/protocols and with new I-Ds -> RFCs for extensions. We'd have to set up registries for block and option types if we publish an RFC for pcapng. We would *also* want a registry for link-layer header types, for both pcap and pcapng. See, for example, RFC 1761 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1761 which specifies the Sun snoop file format, and RFC 3827: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3827 which sets up a registry for snoop link-layer header types: https://www.iana.org/assignments/snoop-datalink-types/snoop-datalink-types.xhtml#snoop-datalink-types-2 and adds some new entries to it.--- End Message --- ___ tcpdump-workers mailing list tcpdump-workers@lists.tcpdump.org https://lists.sandelman.ca/mailman/listinfo/tcpdump-workers
Re: [tcpdump-workers] New Version Notification for draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng-02.txt
--- Begin Message ---
On Sep 28, 2020, at 12:06 PM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
> On 28. Sep 2020, at 20:26, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>> internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>>> Diff:
>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng-02
>>
>> Hi, I have converted the xml to markdown.
>
> Why? If we want to publish this, it will be published in xmlv3. So
> better to use that format earlier...
There are tools to convert Markdown to v2 or v3 RFC XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/pubprocess/tools/
so:
1) is it easier to edit Markdown or RFC XML?
2) is Markdown rich enough to do everything we want to do?
For 2), I note that
https://github.com/pcapng/pcapng/blob/master/draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng.md
has a bunch of stuff that GitHub isn't treating as markup, such as the stuff
prior to the "Introduction" heading, and the tags such as "{::boilerplate
bcp14}". Is that an extension of Markdown not supported by GitHub's Markdown
renderer but supported by some Markdown-to-RFC XML converter, or incomplete
parts of the RFC XML to Markdown conversion?
In addition, the XML version at
https://github.com/pcapng/pcapng/blob/master/reference-draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng.xml
has some additional Decryption Secrets Block secret formats. Those have data
formats that *themselves* call for figures, and I'd been trying, at one point,
to determine how to do that in RFC XML v2 format - it might require v3 format.
Can that be handled with Markdown?--- End Message ---
___
tcpdump-workers mailing list
tcpdump-workers@lists.tcpdump.org
https://lists.sandelman.ca/mailman/listinfo/tcpdump-workers
Re: [tcpdump-workers] New Version Notification for draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng-02.txt
--- Begin Message --- On Sep 28, 2020, at 1:42 PM, Michael Tuexen wrote: > Shouldn't we write up (I can work on an initial version) of > a specification for .pcap. https://github.com/pcapng/pcapng/blob/master/draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap.xml http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/cgi-bin/xml2rfc.cgi?url=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pcapng/pcapng/master/draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap.xml&modeAsFormat=html/ascii&type=ascii --- End Message --- ___ tcpdump-workers mailing list tcpdump-workers@lists.tcpdump.org https://lists.sandelman.ca/mailman/listinfo/tcpdump-workers
Re: [tcpdump-workers] New Version Notification for draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng-02.txt
--- Begin Message --- On Sep 28, 2020, at 2:00 PM, Michael Tuexen wrote: > On 28. Sep 2020, at 22:48, Guy Harris wrote: > >> On Sep 28, 2020, at 1:42 PM, Michael Tuexen wrote: >> >>> Shouldn't we write up (I can work on an initial version) of >>> a specification for .pcap. >> >> >> https://github.com/pcapng/pcapng/blob/master/draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap.xml > > Cool. Do you want to publish it as an RFC? At some point. Currently, I view it as "up for review by the community", and there have been pull requests from the community applied. Should its publication coincide with the introduction of an IANA registry of link-layer data types (replacing the tcpdump.org one)? Should we publish one RFC for the pcap format and one RFC that includes the current content of the registry? (The latter would probably be much bigger than the former)--- End Message --- ___ tcpdump-workers mailing list tcpdump-workers@lists.tcpdump.org https://lists.sandelman.ca/mailman/listinfo/tcpdump-workers
