Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG

Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com> Fri, 09 September 2011 11:31 UTC

Return-Path: <glenzorn@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 962FD21F873A for <pppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 04:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7leFrbPYWbZ6 for <pppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 04:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f181.google.com (mail-gx0-f181.google.com [209.85.161.181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1551421F872A for <pppext@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 04:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gxk9 with SMTP id 9so1017492gxk.40 for <pppext@ietf.org>; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 04:33:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4Sqt0HTUKWjnGkleGOkhE7Bzwew3sxPGRomXQPqnO9M=; b=ERImUxbnjEX/lQlT9VkFf2o073CsjaUl1jgt5LAiLKoiA8oJhukspTlJs101+w3kWO OZrK5V3JWCvpb+gWfOnv3IrlSiXrMBKqfq9PrFcDHdgwQ7NVw0U6uyXUc9o1bloJ2vZA MeCgATFNdI6NBGzoNK+J5B9kOlbsfH5ODguSM=
Received: by 10.236.89.70 with SMTP id b46mr11022662yhf.38.1315568020094; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 04:33:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.99] (ppp-124-120-17-121.revip2.asianet.co.th [124.120.17.121]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c62sm6313135yhj.25.2011.09.09.04.33.36 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 09 Sep 2011 04:33:38 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E69F98B.2050504@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 18:33:31 +0700
From: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
References: <CAF4+nEF-G1zpRABffyT+fpx=Oc0__u1Yth6oK-1UWLTqEgCRVg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEF-G1zpRABffyT+fpx=Oc0__u1Yth6oK-1UWLTqEgCRVg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IETF PPP Extensions <pppext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG
X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PPP Extensions <pppext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pppext>, <mailto:pppext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pppext>
List-Post: <mailto:pppext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pppext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext>, <mailto:pppext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:31:46 -0000

On 9/9/2011 5:24 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> In case you were unaware, I am now the Chair of PPPEXT.

Thanks for mentioning it!

> 
> Generally, there has been little activity in this WG for some years.
> Although I believe it serves a useful purpose in examining PPP
> proposals, possibly that purpose could be served by just continuing
> the mailing list. In any case, it seems likely that, if the situation
> continues unchanged, the WG will be dissolved sometime early next
> year.
> 
> In the process of producing RFC 6361, it became very apparent that the
> PPP security RFCs, such as they are, meet few, if any, modern IETF
> security guidelines. 

Would these be realistic guidelines (such as RFC 3552 (but do you
consider that 'modern')) or pie-in-the-sky "in my dream world this is
how it would work" guidelines (like RFC 4962)?

> I believe that there should be an update of PPP
> security or, if an effort to update them fails for some reason, then
> at least old / inadequate / unimplemented PPP security RFCs should be
> declared historic.

Do you have a list of said RFCs?

> 
> My suggestion is that PPPEXT re-Charter to include a goal such as the
> above and I'm willing to try drafting a new Charter but welcome
> suggestions and comments on all this.
> 
> One question is, should PPPEXT have a 1 hour meeting at the November
> IETF meeting? I think that would be the best way to come to consensus
> on this but obviously only if enough people would plan to actually
> attend. So, I'd be interested in who is would attend and any opinions
> for or against such a meeting.

I would attend if I had no irreconcilable conflicts.