Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Mon, 12 September 2011 03:58 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.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 77DBB21F87E2 for <pppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 20:58:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.11
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.511, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 pWkq4TnEqe-M for <pppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 20:58:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95E4B21F87D6 for <pppext@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 20:58:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxd18 with SMTP id 18so618826fxd.31 for <pppext@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 21:00:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yCdOjfsB4ozBYMOiTVXQ8fF9evpWrpy/pmYAHPcN6wI=; b=MoXTUAerPUwl/7e9rgpC7/OKpl39MUWHDRfk6lU2V5vSajn3+f8ZcbXkvHKsHceKBr aY6N10o2/F/nqWOqB42Nod0pzaTqxQrzeWbWXYhPaGLCJNXWvyTgAFaCllOErL+23r/3 blrbql+WI984qgfGou90odP2h8Dj9jq8je2A8=
Received: by 10.223.64.66 with SMTP id d2mr3584600fai.116.1315800031326; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 21:00:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.6.105 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 21:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <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> <ED33CEDF-7401-4201-86F1-D8E6BC49F27C@townsley.net>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:00:11 -0400
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEE3WEZX=x=unX-G7f1g9TM+phQW0rXiS_YwL9vNSFsWpA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 03:58:30 -0000

Hi Mark,

On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net> wrote:
>
> 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."

Not only is that a problem for security documents, if any are desired,
but it tripped up RFC 6361 that ended up having a four week IETF Last
Call to fix the problem.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com

> 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
>
>
>
>