Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG

Mark Townsley <> Fri, 09 September 2011 23:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C1A821F872A for <>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 16:49:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.438
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.160, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1YL451Jug+AJ for <>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 16:49:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 245AF21F8593 for <>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 16:49:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwn22 with SMTP id 22so886765wwn.1 for <>; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 16:51:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id ex20mr2587435wbb.89.1315612265270; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 16:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPS id p19sm8974318wbm.16.2011. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 09 Sep 2011 16:51:03 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-10-150128780
From: Mark Townsley <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 01:51:01 +0200
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
To: Donald Eastlake <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
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 23:49:12 -0000

OK, I stand corrected. I was thinking of the charter that had existed before and during my tenure as AD:

It seems a few sentences were added in 2009, in particular the unfortunate text that says: 

"The group is not expected to create new specifications, and if a need for such work comes up, a recharter is required."

This looks like Jari's handiwork, he just loves to recharter WGs ;-)

With this new sentence, yes, it looks like pppext is unnecessarily hamstrung from advancing enhancements that the group does *not* think are of questionable value. 

- Mark

On Sep 9, 2011, at 8:26 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:

> Hi Mark,
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Mark Townsley <> wrote:
>> On Sep 9, 2011, at 1:33 PM, Glen Zorn wrote:
> Actually I wrote the following:
>>> 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 would attend and any opinions
>>> for or against such a meeting.
>> PPPEXT hasn't met in, what, 10 years or more? The charter hasn't changed
>> significantly since Thomas Narten was AD. I seriously doubt a physical
>> meeting is worth having in what are already jam-packed IETF meetings.  If
>> you have any PPP experts there, it will be because folks like Glen, James,
>> and others happen to have moved on to other areas that require IETF
>> presence.
> I don't have any particular problem operating PPPEXT without meetings,
> if that is what people want, either under the current charter or an
> expanded charter to do some security stuff.
>> If you are dead set on a recharter (personally, I like the pppext charter,
>> and pointed to it as a good example of a "dormant but useful" WG several
>> times as AD) then round up the PPP guys that are still around and chat with
>> them in the hallway and take it to the list. It could even be a fun bar
>> outing, looking back on the good old 90s... perhaps we could get Craig and
>> Karl Fox to dig up some memorabilia.
> Well, it caused some difficulties with the TRILL over PPP draft that
> the current charter prohibits the WG producing any documents, which
> seems to also rule out the WG updating any security documents.
> Furthermore, I believe that our AD is inclined to shut down the WG if
> the current situation doesn't change.
>> But, please don't make Marcia deal with what to her will look like a brand
>> new WG to deal with scheduling.
> Everything has benefits and costs. That it takes some effort to
> schedule a meeting for a group that has not met in a long time does
> not seem like the exclusively controlling factor to me.
> Thanks,
> Donald
> =============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>> - Mark
>> I would attend if I had no irreconcilable conflicts.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pppext mailing list