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
- PPPoE Protocol and the IETF Reinaldo Penno
- Re: PPPoE Protocol and the IETF Pat Calhoun
- RE: PPPoE Protocol and the IETF Reinaldo Penno