[Gen-art] Re: Gen-art review of draft-bberry-pppoe-credit-04.txt

Mark Townsley wrote:

>
> Focusing on one point (authors, please respond to the other issues 
> directly)
>
> Elwyn Davies wrote:
>
>>  Even were it to be published I am unclear why this document should be
>>  Informational. It is documenting a proposed extension to a standard
>>  (although, if the authors wished, it could have made use of the
>>  existing Vendor-specific tag and then it would legitimately have been
>>  an Informational document on that front - the new message types are
>>  another matter) and as such ought to be aiming for PS.
>
>
> This document is extending PPPoE, which by no means is a standard of 
> any kind. I'm not sure what status other than Informational I could 
> ask for here.

As has been said elsewhere it isn't entirely clear why PPPoE is 
Informational.  Be that as it may, the mechanism in section 5 is 
actually an extension to PPP if it were done properly (as I said in the 
review the contents of s5 is IMO unaccpetable - it avoids defining a new 
PPP packet format by hacking in an extra field).

>
>
>>
>>  Assuming this document is approved, it needs an IANA considerations
>>  section. I think that it effectively creates two registries for
>>  PPPoE discovery message ids and discovery option tags which (AFAICS)
>>  weren't setup by RFC2516 although the TAG registry is implicit in the
>>  wording of RFC2516.
>>
>
> We intend to ask for an IANA space for the PPPoE tag registry. For 
> this, and other PPPoE extensions.
>
> draft-arberg-pppoe-iana-00.txt
>
> - Mark

This doesn't cover the new (pseudo-)discovery phase message id codes for 
PADG, PADC and PADQ.
The document also misses the normative reference to drft-arberg that is 
needed.

Happy New Year,
Elwyn

>
>

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art