IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype-10
review-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype-10-tsvart-lc-scharf-2025-06-11-00

This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.

This document seems ready, apart from some small nits:

Nits:

- Section 1: PCAP and PCAPng are also widely used by network analysis tools
beyond tcpdump and Wireshark, including closed-source tools. An alternative
wording would be "..., both of which are used by tools such as tcpdump and
Wireshark [Wireshark]." or  "..., both of which are used by tcpdump, Wireshark
[Wireshark] and other tools.

- Section 2.2: There may be an implicit assumption that "LinkType Name" is
written in all-capital letters.

- Section 2.2.2: There may be an implicit assumption that entries in the
registry will only be added, as neither maintenance (e.g., change of a contact
person) nor removal procedures are specified. As long as only additions have to
be dealt with, the current specification seems sufficient. Otherwise additional
considerations on maintenance and removal could make sense, e.g., similar to
RFC 6335.

- Section 2.2.2: The wording regarding "wp-uploaded" should be improved (see
other related comments).

Thanks

Michael