Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG

Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net> Fri, 09 September 2011 23:49 UTC

Return-Path: <mark@townsley.net>
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 5C1A821F872A for <pppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 16:49:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.438
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1YL451Jug+AJ for <pppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 16:49:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f42.google.com (mail-ww0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 245AF21F8593 for <pppext@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 16:49:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwn22 with SMTP id 22so886765wwn.1 for <pppext@ietf.org>; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 16:51:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.200.212 with SMTP id ex20mr2587435wbb.89.1315612265270; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 16:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-townsley-8712.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p19sm8974318wbm.16.2011.09.09.16.51.03 (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 <mark@townsley.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEFGfsF6xiWdHL+sayTjWwkrpfGau_aTHHkeggcXeBJF_g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 01:51:01 +0200
Message-Id: <ED33CEDF-7401-4201-86F1-D8E6BC49F27C@townsley.net>
References: <CAF4+nEF-G1zpRABffyT+fpx=Oc0__u1Yth6oK-1UWLTqEgCRVg@mail.gmail.com> <4E69F98B.2050504@gmail.com> <2E733A2A-4ED6-44FF-A2CE-D57C33F36560@townsley.net> <CAF4+nEFGfsF6xiWdHL+sayTjWwkrpfGau_aTHHkeggcXeBJF_g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: IETF PPP Extensions <pppext@ietf.org>
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: 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:

http://tools.ietf.org/wg/pppext/charters?item=charter-pppext-2006-07-03.txt

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 <mark@townsley.net> 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
>  d3e3e3@gmail.com
> 
>> - Mark
>> 
>> I would attend if I had no irreconcilable conflicts.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pppext mailing list
>> Pppext@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext
>> 
>>