Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG

Vernon Schryver <vjs@rhyolite.com> Wed, 28 September 2011 13:45 UTC

Return-Path: <vjs@rhyolite.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 7535221F8D3D for <pppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 06:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.766
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.766 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.833, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_OBFU_PUBLICATION=1.666]
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 5dY2qQuJTvIO for <pppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 06:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (calcite.rhyolite.com [IPv6:2001:4978:230::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ADE521F8CEB for <pppext@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 06:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p8SDmA2O051080 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <pppext@ietf.org> env-from <vjs@rhyolite.com>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:48:10 GMT
Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p8SDm4ui051075 for pppext@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:48:04 GMT
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:48:04 GMT
From: Vernon Schryver <vjs@rhyolite.com>
Message-Id: <201109281348.p8SDm4ui051075@calcite.rhyolite.com>
To: pppext@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <4E82A074.4030406@gmail.com>
X-DCC-Rhyolite-Metrics: calcite.rhyolite.com; whitelist
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: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:45:28 -0000

> From: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com>

> Actually, there is one useful thing that this WG could do before its
> demise: update or obsolete RFC 3818 so that necessary work can be done
> when it (the WG) is gone.

RFC 3818 does nothing but require that IANA demand IETF consensus (not
necessarily consensus in this WG) before assigning new numbers in some
address spaces.  So how would changing RFC 3818 be useful and to whom?
How would replacing RFC 3818 help users and implementors of PPP related
protocols, as opposed to helping people with personal needs to be RFC
authors?

If future necessary work can't get IETF consensus to replace RFC
3818 when the need arises, then its necessarity is not a proper
concern of the IETF.

Changing RFC 3818 would only slightly ease publiccation of ill
considered ideas driven not by technical needs but by misunderstanding,
hurt feelings, or vanity like the majority of PPP related IDs for
the last 10 years.


Vernon Schryver    vjs@rhyolite.com