Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype Title: Link-Layer Types for PCAP-related Capture File Formats Reviewer: Luis Contreras Review result: Has Nits I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational Directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written to improve the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last-call comments. Some of them are comments intended to provide clarification in certain aspects of the document, while the rest are minor. /* Comments */ - Section 2.2. It is stated that "LinkType values 147 to 162 named LINKTYPE_RESERVED_xx were originally reserved for Private Use. Their use is Deprecated in favour of the values in the 65001-65535 range." It is not clear to me if this implies that LinkType values 147 to 162 are then available for new allocations or if it is recommended not being used because of their previous usage as reserved values. In any case, a clarification statement for this is advisable. Note that if those values are intended to be allocatable, then it could be convenient to describe any implication in terms of backward compatibility. - No reference is provided for LINKTYPE_ETHERNET even though the description refers to IEEE 802.3 Ethernet. Should not be added a reference to the appropriate specification by IEEE? - For a number of assigned values (e.g., 5, 7, 99, ...) the description says "Reserved for ...". This gives the impression of a non definitive allocation, but something to happen in the future. Since they are allocations for legacy link types, should we either reconsider the description (i.e., remove "reserved for") or propose some statement in that respect in terms of assessing if such reservation is effective or not? Anyway, I acknowledge that the mission of the document is not auditing the usage of the assigned values but promoting a registry of them. But similarly to the recommendation about values 147 to 162 I'm not sure if something can be mentioned in this respect, as well. This apllies also to the case of Number 208. - Link types 11 to 49 are described as "not to be use" values, but there is not justification for it in the text (Section 2.2 introduces different cases but not this one). Please provide some information about why these numbers should not be used. Same for values 52 to 98. - No reference is provided for LINKTYPE_RAW even though the description refers to IPv4 and IPv6. Should not be added a reference to the appropriate specification by IETF? By the way, it seems to be redundant with Number 228 and 229. Anyway, I acknowledge that the mission of the document is not auditing the information associated with already assigned values. - Current description of the registry, in line with current values, contains information about Name, Number, Description and Reference. I wonder if for new allocations could be interesting to register the date of allocation for the purpose of tracing the the aging of the allocation in the future. - Section 2.2.2. It is mentioned the following: "LinkTypes may be allocated for specifications not publicly available may be made within the FCFS range. This includes specifications that might be classified. The minimal requirement is to provide a contact person for that link type." My quesiton is, should all the (new) registries contain the contact person? I think it is advisable to describe in some section the structure of the information required for the new allocations, so to avoid confussion. /* Editorial */ - s/Their use is Deprecated in favour of.../Their use is deprecated in favour of - Is there any reason for the indentation of the last paragraph in Section 2.2? - Section 2.2.2. The following sentence does not read well to me (please, note I'm not English native speaker): "LinkTypes may be allocated for specifications not publicly available may be made within the FCFS range." -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
