Re: [Pppext] warning suggestions for draft-bberry-pppoe-credit

James Carlson <james.d.carlson@sun.com> Fri, 09 December 2005 17:04 UTC

Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EklfT-0007GR-MY; Fri, 09 Dec 2005 12:04:23 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EklfR-0007Bc-Jd for pppext@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2005 12:04:21 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01427 for <pppext@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Dec 2005 12:03:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from brmea-mail-3.sun.com ([192.18.98.34]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EklfO-0002ke-G8 for pppext@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2005 12:04:19 -0500
Received: from eastmail2bur.East.Sun.COM ([129.148.13.40]) by brmea-mail-3.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB9H423F001008 for <pppext@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Dec 2005 10:04:02 -0700 (MST)
Received: from phorcys.East.Sun.COM (phorcys.East.Sun.COM [129.148.174.143]) by eastmail2bur.East.Sun.COM (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10/ENSMAIL, v2.2) with ESMTP id jB9H41Wg024906 for <pppext@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Dec 2005 12:04:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from phorcys.East.Sun.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phorcys.East.Sun.COM (8.13.5+Sun/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jB9H41l6006987; Fri, 9 Dec 2005 12:04:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from carlsonj@localhost) by phorcys.East.Sun.COM (8.13.5+Sun/8.13.5/Submit) id jB9H41k5006984; Fri, 9 Dec 2005 12:04:01 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <17305.47361.253776.227043@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 12:04:01 -0500
From: James Carlson <james.d.carlson@sun.com>
To: Bo Berry <bberry@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Pppext] warning suggestions for draft-bberry-pppoe-credit
In-Reply-To: Bo Berry's message of 9 December 2005 11:27:07
References: <7FB7EE0A621BA44B8B69E5F0A09DC76401170857@xmb-rtp-208.amer.cisco.com> <43996295.2020003@greendragon.com> <104B0E92-C0C3-4D99-A7D6-DBECC54FF53A@columbus.rr.com> <17305.37461.664962.331436@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <4399B05B.6040503@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: VM 7.01 under Emacs 21.3.1
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: pppext@ietf.org, William Allen Simpson <wsimpson@greendragon.com>, Karl Fox <karlfox@columbus.rr.com>
X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: PPP Extensions <pppext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext>, <mailto:pppext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:pppext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pppext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext>, <mailto:pppext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: pppext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pppext-bounces@ietf.org

Bo Berry writes:
> Guess it would not be unexpected to say that we disagree
> with the text and addition of the disclaimer.  It appears
> from these emails (and from emails of past as well), that
> there is a lot of disagreement on PPPoE.  We're not

Indeed, but that's not the point at all.  PPPoE isn't actually needed
to solve the problem here.

> trying to to correct PPPoE.  We're not here to debate the
> process and value of IETF Informational specs.

Nor are we.

> We have proposed and documented extenstions to the PPPoE
> spec, which are within the context of that spec.  These
> are documented as optional.

"Optional" does not mean "without cost" or "quality is unimportant" or
even "I get to publish without addressing issues from reviewers."

> The draft went through the IETF process and has gone through
> the expert review period. At this point we can agree to
> disagree.  Therefore we request that the draft be published
> as is, without any inserted (bias) text, and without any
> further delay.

Sorry, but that's not the way it's going to happen.  You don't own
this particular vanity press.

The IESG intends to publish the document with a suitable warning to
summarize that there is no consensus that this protocol addition is a
good idea.  This could have happened without input from any of us; the
process allows that (see section 4.2.3 of RFC 2026 if you're
unfamiliar with the process).  Our AD politely asked for input, and I
suggested taking it to the list because I wasn't one of the principals
involved in the original discussion, and I wanted to capture the
problem accurately and succinctly.

I believe we've managed to do that.

If you want it published without "bias," then I suggest that you
withdraw the request to publish and use your own press instead.

-- 
James Carlson, KISS Network                    <james.d.carlson@sun.com>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive         71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677

_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext