Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG

Glen Zorn <> Fri, 09 September 2011 11:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 962FD21F873A for <>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 04:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7leFrbPYWbZ6 for <>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 04:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1551421F872A for <>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 04:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gxk9 with SMTP id 9so1017492gxk.40 for <>; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 04:33:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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 with SMTP id b46mr11022662yhf.38.1315568020094; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 04:33:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPS id c62sm6313135yhj.25.2011. (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 09 Sep 2011 04:33:38 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 18:33:31 +0700
From: Glen Zorn <>
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 <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IETF PPP Extensions <>
Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PPP Extensions <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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.