Re: PPPoE Protocol and the IETF

Pat Calhoun <pcalhoun@diameter.org> Thu, 13 September 2001 03:00 UTC

Received: by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) id XAA10517 for ietf-outbound.10@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2001 23:00:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from charizard.diameter.org (nobody@c900656-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com [24.20.167.220]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id WAA10412 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Sep 2001 22:52:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (qmail 29670 invoked by uid 500); 13 Sep 2001 02:39:45 -0000
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 19:39:45 -0700
From: Pat Calhoun <pcalhoun@diameter.org>
To: Reinaldo Penno <reinaldo_penno@nortelnetworks.com>
Cc: "'pppoe@ipsec.org'" <pppoe@ipsec.org>, "'l2tp@l2tp.net'" <l2tp@l2tp.net>, "'ietf-ppp@merit.edu'" <ietf-ppp@merit.edu>, "'ietf@ietf.org'" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: PPPoE Protocol and the IETF
Message-ID: <20010912193945.D29588@charizard.diameter.org>
References: <A7895B732354D311A4770008C791841A014E26E5@zsc4c014.us.nortel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <A7895B732354D311A4770008C791841A014E26E5@zsc4c014.us.nortel.com>; from reinaldo_penno@nortelnetworks.com on Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 06:13:40PM -0700
X-Loop: ietf@ietf.org

To be fair, there already was a BOF. The consensus, as I recall, was that
existing protocols should be used for this purpose, and there was no need
for something new.

I see no reason to re-open old wounds. There is nothing wrong with an
Informational RFC, as far as I can tell. Plenty of interoperable products,
and that I believe was the goal.

PatC
On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 06:13:40PM -0700, Reinaldo Penno wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> In the years following the publication of the PPPoE protocol much
> operational experience and  customer feedback was gathered. These
> deployments led to the discovery of several  shortcomings or enhancements
> needed such as (but not limited to): QoS, Multicast, MIBs,  Route Updates,
> Seamless Service Selection, etc.  
> 
> Even tough several companies stepped forward and wrote drafts proposing
> solutions to these issues, the lack of a appropriate forum within the IETF
> to discuss them had undesired consequences for these proposals such as
> little adoption or interoperability problems when adopted. Not to mention
> that the original PPPoE RFC (2516) has an informational status.
> 
> Due to the widespread use of this protocol and the issues mentioned above,
> we are proposing  that the interested parties join the newly created mailing
> list for the purpose to discuss how to create within the IETF an official
> forum to standardize the PPPoE protocol and related work. We are also
> working with the Internet Area Directors on possibly holding a BOF, and one
> of the purposes of creating the mailing list is to gauge interest and
> discuss what a WG would do.
> 
> Here are some references to work related to the PPPoE protocol:
> 
> http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-song-pppoe-ext-multicast-00.txt
> http://community.roxen.com/developers/idocs/drafts/draft-wheeler-info-pppoe-
> mib-00.html
> http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-penno-pppoe-ext-qos-00.txt
> http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-penno-pppoe-ext-service-03.txt
> http://community.roxen.com/developers/idocs/drafts/draft-carrel-info-pppoe-e
> xt-00.html
> http://community.roxen.com/developers/idocs/drafts/draft-fiaschi-qoscapabili
> ty-ppp-00.txt
> http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dasilva-l2tp-relaysvc-00.txt
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2516.txt?number=2516
> 
> To subscribe to the mailing list, visit the URL:
> http://eng.registro.br/mailman/listinfo/pppoe-ietf or
> send a message to pppoe-ietf-request@eng.registro.br with the word
> "subscribe" (without the quotes) in the message body
> 
> thanks,
> 
> Reinaldo Penno