Link-Layer Types for PCAP-related Capture File Formats
draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype-18

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Joel Halpern for the GENART review.

Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS feedback.

There was new text introduced after the -12 version brought to the telechat.

** New Section 2.2.2 text:

  Specifications that are not publicly available, but which may be 
  obtained via liaison agreements (such as to ITU-T, drafts, IEEE,
  etc.) are acceptable particularly if the specification document will
  be public eventually.  This includes specifications that might be
  subject to a security classification for which no public document
  will ever be made.

Consider it really necessary to describe why no public document will be made.  The term “security classification” could mean a few things and it isn’t needed for the justification.  For example, this text could mean a government is a controlling authority.  Does that mean a company’s proprietary link type not be possible?  I recommend maximizing flexibility (which I think is the current approach in the code).

Editorial -- As written this text is also confusing.  The first sentence talks about specifications which might be public eventually.  Then the second sentence opens with “This includes, …”, but talks about specification which will never be released.

Maybe say something to the effect of:

Registrations for specifications that are not publicly available are acceptable.  This includes specifications obtained via liaison agreements (such as to ITU-T, drafts, IEEE, etc.), those that may eventually be made public, or those for which no public document will be available.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to the authors and the WG for their work on this document and taking care of my concerns and comments in the original ballot. I support this work.

[Ballot discuss]
Thanks to the authors and the WG for their work on this document. I support it and have a few items that I would like to discuss.

Note: updating my ballot for the v14 of the document.

2) The registry is missing the Change Controller column and filing that is a bit tricky. I believe none of the initial allocations have the IETF as the change controller since it comes from the tcpdump/pcap open source code. As such, perhaps that open source project (or the lead developer/maintainer(s) for it) should become the Change Controllers?

Update for v14: IETF/IESG can be change controller for the "reserved" or "private use" portions but not for anything else since those other allocations are described via IETF consensus RFCs. The change controllers for those need to be the individuals doing the allocations in my original DISCUSS comment above.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to the authors and the WG for their work on this document. The following comments still remain in the v14 of the document.

4) Should the "LinkType Value" not be the first registry column which is the codepoint to be allocated? This will help organize the registry correctly as the "index"?

5) There should be also a Change Controller column in the registry. This is particularly important since this is largely FCFS and this is where a "requester" from outside the IETF will be identified. An implication arising out of this is that it seems like for most of the initial assignments done in this document, the Change Controller is not really IETF but the tcpdump open source implementation?

7) On the DE guidance, I will defer to the WG since I am unable to suggest a good enough text for the same.

[Ballot comment]
The datatracker and the shepherd says 'Informational', but the draft says 'Standards Track', please update.

Many of the references are not stable - anything pointing to a website, for example.

Section 3.2.2, para 1:  These two sentences are contradictory - 'provide a specification' and 'no requirement for a specification'.

I support Ketan's and Roman's discusses.

[Ballot discuss]
** Section 3.2
  *  Values from 0 to 65000 are allocated following a First-Come First-
      Served policy (Section 4.4 of [RFC8126]).  Values in the ranges
      0-10, 50-51, and 98-301 are already assigned; values in the ranges
      11-49 and 52-97 MUST NOT be assigned.

-- Why are 11-49 and 52-97 not just reserved?

-- Per https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-the-use-of-bcp-14-key-words/, please remove the BCP14 key words from the IANA Considerations section.

** Section 3.2.2.  What is the purpose of this section?  The two registration policies for this registry are FCFS and experimental, neither of which have a designated expert.

[Ballot comment]
Comments draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype-12

Thank you for the work that you have put into this document.

Please find below a non-blocking COMMENT,

I found this text:
/When the contents of the link type can contain an IPv4 or IPv6
  header, then the octets between the beginning of the link type and
  the IP header needs to be clear./
- For which I was unsure what was intended by the word "clear", was that intended to mean "clearly specified" or some other form of clarity?

[Ballot comment]
Comments draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype-12

Thank you for the work that you have put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT point:

I found this text:
/When the contents of the link type can contain an IPv4 or IPv6
  header, then the octets between the beginning of the link type and
  the IP header needs to be clear./
- For which I was unsure what was intended by the word "clear", was that intended to mean "clearly specified" or some other form of clarity?

[Ballot discuss]
Thanks to the authors and the WG for their work on this document. I support it and have a few items that I would like to discuss.

1) The following reference needs to be normative since this is where the PCAP protocol which is the subject matter of this document is specified?

[I-D.ietf-opsawg-pcap]
Harris, G. and M. Richardson, "PCAP Capture File Format", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-opsawg-pcap-06, 3 September 2025, .

Perhaps the same goes for the following, but this I am not sure about:

[I-D.ietf-opsawg-pcapng]
Tüxen, M., Risso, F., Bongertz, J., Combs, G., Harris, G., Chaudron, E., and M. Richardson, "PCAP Now Generic (pcapng) Capture File Format", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-opsawg-pcapng-04, 30 August 2025, .

2) The registry is missing the Change Controller column and filing that is a bit tricky. I believe none of the initial allocations have the IETF as the change controller since it comes from the tcpdump/pcap open source code. As such, perhaps that open source project (or the lead developer/maintainer(s) for it) should become the Change Controllers?

3) Regarding the reference for each initial entry, there is the following text. But then several entries also have their own references. So, it is not very clear what the text below implies? Is it only for those entries that are without specific individual references?

"The initial version of the registry is provided in Section 3.2.1. In each case here, the reference should be set to [TCPDUMP] and the RFC number to be assigned to this document, which is not repeated each time."

4) The DE guidance has the following text but I am not sure that I understand what this means. This needs a reference to some relevant specification that explains the encoding in question.

"When the contents of the link type can contain an IPv4 or IPv6 header, then the octets between the beginning of the link type and the IP header needs to be clear."

[Ballot comment]
Please find below some comments:

1) This comment is for the responsible AD: please set the "consensus boilerplate" to "Yes" for this document in the datatracker.

2) Please expand PCAP - I believe it stands for Packet Capture?

3) Please remove the BCP 14 boilerplate since those keywords are not used (nor applicable) for this document.

4) Should the "LinkType Value" not be the first registry column which is the codepoint to be allocated? This will help organize the registry correctly as the "index"?

5) There should be also a Change Controller column in the registry. This is particularly important since this is largely FCFS and this is where a "requester" from outside the IETF will be identified. An implication arising out of this is that it seems like for most of the initial assignments done in this document, the Change Controller is not really IETF but the tcpdump open source implementation?

6) Perhaps s/values in the ranges 11-49 and 52-97 MUST NOT be assigned./values in the ranges 11-49 and 52-97 are reserved and MUST NOT be assigned.

7) The DE guidance has the following text. Please consider rephrasing it to be more direct - i.e., the DEs are expected to review the specification/reference (when provided) to determine that there is isn't an existing allocation. Also, there is some text that suggests that DEs may use their own judgement or consult with OPSAWG/OPS ADs. Perhaps this can be merged into a paragraph that describes directly what a DE is supposed to do.

"There is no requirement for a specification, but often review of the specification allows the Designated Expert to determine if the allocation actually is a duplicate of another specification."

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype-12
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Joe Clarke for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus _but it lacks_ the justification of the intended status, see below.

Other thanks to Carlos Bernardos, the Internet directorate reviewer (at OPSAWG WG chair's request), please consider this int-dir last call review as I was unable to find any reply by the authors even if -12 appears to address most (if not all) of Carlos' comments:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype-05-intdir-lc-bernardos-2024-08-22/

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Why informational ?

The shepherd write-up is rather silent on the intended status of informational as it seems to me that proposed standard would be a better fit.

Moreover, draft-ietf-opsawg-pcapng has, rightfully, a normative reference to a previous version (draft-richardson-opsawg-pcaplinktype) of this I-D, i.e., this creates a downref.

### Abstract

An abstract should be short of course, but this one is a little too short: why not adding reference (expansion at least) for PCAP. It also uses the word "describes", which is correct for an informational I-D, even if it actually "specifies" the value, i.e., why not 'proposed standard' ?

### Section 2

As I spotted only one use of BCP14 (moreover in an informational I-D) in section 3.2 (IANA considerations), please remove this section. See also https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-the-use-of-bcp-14-key-words/ about the use of BCP14 terms in IANA considerations.

### Section 3.2.2

Per section 4.2 of RFC 8126, there is no designated expert for a FCFS registry, i.e., remove this section or change the registry policy to 'expert review'.

As IANA has reviewed -11 and found it OK, then I am not raising a DISCUSS on this point.

[Ballot comment]
Hi Guy & Michael,

Many thanks for the sustained effort to push this forward. Much appreciated!

I have reviewed this document several times in the past. This version looks good to me.

Cheers,
Med

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype-11. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, a new registry group will be created on the IANA Matrix at:

https://www.iana.org/protocols

The new registry group will be called the PCAP Registry and its reference will be [ RFC-to-be ].

Second, in the new registry group created above, a new registry will be created called the PCAP-related LinkType List registry. The registration rules for the new registry are as follows [RFC8126]:

Values in the ranges 0-10, 50-51, and 98-301 are assigned as initial registrations upon creation of the new registry.
values in the ranges 11-49 and 52-97 MUST not be assigned.
Values from 302 to 65000 are allocated following a First-Come First-Served policy as defined by [RFC8126].
Values from 65001 to 65535 are reserved for Experimental Use as defined in [RFC8126].

There are initial registrations in the new registry and all have a reference of [ RFC-to-be ] and the external reference at:

https://www.tcpdump.org/linktypes.html

The initial registrations are as documented in section 2.2.1 of the current draft.

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-10-06):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype@ietf.org, jclarke@cisco.com, mjethanandani@gmail.com, opsawg-chairs@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Link-Layer Types for PCAP-related Capture File Formats) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Operations and Management Area
Working Group WG (opsawg) to consider the following document: - 'Link-Layer
Types for PCAP-related Capture File Formats'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2025-10-06. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes a set of PCAP-related LinkType values and
  creates an IANA registry for those values.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
 
There have been some discussions on this, but in general the WG wasn't very active.  That said, there was no dissent to publish this.  One thing that was brought up is perhaps maintaining this registry outside of IANA (.e.g, GitHub), but keeping it outside the IETF process for those "needs specification" items is not ideal.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
 
No.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)
 
No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
 
N/A

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.
 
The contents of this document affect open source projects.  Specifically, tcpdump, libpcap, and wireshark use these types.  One of the document authors is a lead developer for the Wireshark project and the other is the maintainer of tcpdump.  So their reviews are assumed.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
 
N/A

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?
 
No YANG module in this document.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
 
Other than IDNITS, there was no automated checks run nor were required given the document's contents.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
 
Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
   
INTDIR and GENART have reviewed this document, and, given the changes, think it is ready.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
   
This document is to be published as an Informational RFC.  That is properly reflected in DataTracker.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.
   
Yes.  Both authors have attested to no known IPR.  See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/1r-BnNodt-3fEzsrVokXdY2mY_s/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.
   
Yes, the authors have agreed to act as authors.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
   
All of the errors have been cleaned up.  There are a few formatting warnings that
can be addressed by the RFC Ed if they make it to the final draft.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
   
No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
   
All normative references are freely available.  Informative references are either to RFCs or to open source documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
   
No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
   
No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
   
No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
   
The IANA considerations section is quite detailed as creating a registry is the primary purpose of this document.  The section spells out which linktype values are for first-come-first-serve, which need expert review, and which are reserved.  The AD should determine the best set of designated experts for reviewing specification required additions to the registry.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
   
The PCAP linktype registry requires designated expert review for allocations in the range 32768 to 65000.  That is clearly spelled out in the document.  Both authors, Guy Harris and Michael Richardson have agreed to act as initial DEs.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
 
There have been some discussions on this, but in general the WG wasn't very active.  That said, there was no dissent to publish this.  One thing that was brought up is perhaps maintaining this registry outside of IANA (.e.g, GitHub), but keeping it outside the IETF process for those "needs specification" items is not ideal.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
 
No.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)
 
No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
 
N/A

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.
 
The contents of this document affect open source projects.  Specifically, tcpdump, libpcap, and wireshark use these types.  One of the document authors is a lead developer for the Wireshark project and the other is the maintainer of tcpdump.  So their reviews are assumed.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
 
N/A

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?
 
No YANG module in this document.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
 
Other than IDNITS, there was no automated checks run nor were required given the document's contents.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
 
Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
   
INTDIR and GENART have reviewed this document, and, given the changes, think it is ready.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
   
This document is to be published as an Informational RFC.  That is properly reflected in DataTracker.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.
   
Yes.  Both authors have attested to no known IPR.  See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/1r-BnNodt-3fEzsrVokXdY2mY_s/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.
   
Yes, the authors have agreed to act as authors.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
   
All of the errors have been cleaned up.  There are a few formatting warnings that
can be addressed by the RFC Ed if they make it to the final draft.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
   
No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
   
All normative references are freely available.  Informative references are either to RFCs or to open source documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
   
No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
   
No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
   
No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
   
The IANA considerations section is quite detailed as creating a registry is the primary purpose of this document.  The section spells out which linktype values are for first-come-first-serve, which need expert review, and which are reserved.  The AD should determine the best set of designated experts for reviewing specification required additions to the registry.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
   
The PCAP linktype registry requires designated expert review for allocations in the range 32768 to 65000.  That is clearly spelled out in the document.  Both authors, Guy Harris and Michael Richardson have agreed to act as initial DEs.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
 
There have been some discussions on this, but in general the WG wasn't very active.  That said, there was no dissent to publish this.  One thing that was brought up is perhaps maintaining this registry outside of IANA (.e.g, GitHub), but keeping it outside the IETF process for those "needs specification" items is not ideal.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
 
No.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)
 
No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
 
N/A

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.
 
The contents of this document affect open source projects.  Specifically, tcpdump, libpcap, and wireshark use these types.  One of the document authors is a lead developer for the Wireshark project and the other is the maintainer of tcpdump.  So their reviews are assumed.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
 
N/A

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?
 
No YANG module in this document.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
 
Other than IDNITS, there was no automated checks run nor were required given the document's contents.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
 
Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
   
INTDIR and GENART have reviewed this document, and, given the changes, think it is ready.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
   
This document is to be published as an Informational RFC.  That is properly reflected in DataTracker.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.
   
Yes.  Both authors have attested to no known IPR.  See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/1r-BnNodt-3fEzsrVokXdY2mY_s/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.
   
Yes, the authors have agreed to act as authors.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
   
XXX In progress

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
   
No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
   
All normative references are freely available.  Informative references are either to RFCs or to open source documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
   
No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
   
No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
   
No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
   
The IANA considerations section is quite detailed as creating a registry is the primary purpose of this document.  The section spells out which linktype values are for first-come-first-serve, which need expert review, and which are reserved.  The AD should determine the best set of designated experts for reviewing specification required additions to the registry.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
   
The PCAP linktype registry requires designated expert review for allocations in the range 32768 to 65000.  That is clearly spelled out in the document.  Both authors, Guy Harris and Michael Richardson have agreed to act as initial DEs.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
 
There have been some discussions on this, but in general the WG wasn't very active.  That said, there was no dissent to publish this.  One thing that was brought up is perhaps maintaining this registry outside of IANA (.e.g, GitHub), but keeping it outside the IETF process for those "needs specification" items is not ideal.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
 
No.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)
 
No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?
 
N/A

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.
 
The contents of this document affect open source projects.  Specifically, tcpdump, libpcap, and wireshark use these types.  One of the document authors is a lead developer for the Wireshark project and the other is the maintainer of tcpdump.  So their reviews are assumed.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
 
N/A

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?
 
No YANG module in this document.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
 
Other than IDNITS, there was no automated checks run nor were required given the document's contents.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
 
Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
   
INTDIR and GENART have reviewed this document, and, given the changes, think it is ready.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
   
This document is to be published as an Informational RFC.  That is properly reflected in DataTracker.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.
   
Yes.  Both authors have attested to no known IPR.  See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/1r-BnNodt-3fEzsrVokXdY2mY_s/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.
   
XXX TBD

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
   
XXX In progress

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
   
No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
   
All normative references are freely available.  Informative references are either to RFCs or to open source documents.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
   
No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
   
No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
   
No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
   
The IANA considerations section is quite detailed as creating a registry is the primary purpose of this document.  The section spells out which linktype values are for first-come-first-serve, which need expert review, and which are reserved.  The AD should determine the best set of designated experts for reviewing specification required additions to the registry.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
   
XXX waiting for authors confirmation: The PCAP linktype registry requires designated expert review for allocations in the range 32768 to 65000.  That is clearly spelled out in the document.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

IPR poll cleared (before WGLC) by the two authors (there is a long list of contributor, mainly for historical reasons)
- Guy Harris: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/3f8CBtLJ3YZSoQcitqmqowqGUn4/
- Michael Richardson: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/P_YxthC8ekSjYPoX65Dmurj1puQ/