Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG

Thomas Narten <> Sat, 10 September 2011 01:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6625E21F8558 for <>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 18:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.566
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dpidMh5okYnN for <>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 18:26:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B531921F8540 for <>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 18:26:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p8A06nGZ031908 for <>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 20:06:49 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p8A1RBxO271150 for <>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 21:27:11 -0400
Received: from (loopback []) by (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p8A1Qu5k018749 for <>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 19:26:56 -0600
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id p8A1Qpjl018329 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 9 Sep 2011 19:26:55 -0600
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.12.5) with ESMTP id p8A1QxVI003799; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 21:27:02 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Donald Eastlake <>
In-reply-to: <>
References: <>
Comments: In-reply-to Donald Eastlake <> message dated "Thu, 08 Sep 2011 18:24:24 -0400."
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:26:59 -0400
From: Thomas Narten <>
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: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 01:26:35 -0000

Donald Eastlake <> writes:

> In any case, it seems likely that, if the situation continues
> unchanged, the WG will be dissolved sometime early next year.

Care to elaborate on this? Or did I miss something?

> 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. 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.

> 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.

Is there any evidence that the participants on this list have *any*
(and I do mean *any*) energy to do any such work? And would anyone
even care? (By that, are there still folk doing PPP implementations
that would read such documents?)

This WG's current charter seems to be very realistic and pragmatic
given the state of both PPP and the WG. We should not be updating the
charter to add items that will in practice never get done, no matter
how much we might like to see such work getting done (in an ideal

> 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.

If the purpose of such a meeting is to talk about rechartering, I see
no evidence that such time would be well spent.