IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Mon, 03 October 2011 04:26 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 888F021F84B7 for <pppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 21:26:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.953
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.953 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.354, 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 FuzkhqvGoTLi for <pppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 21:26:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF0661F0C35 for <pppext@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 21:26:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bkaq10 with SMTP id q10so5258760bka.31 for <pppext@ietf.org>; Sun, 02 Oct 2011 21:29:56 -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=E4aDMDjbK7E+0PDdUDduirz+UPveEMRADH+zrLjz8NU=; b=ZJN1YuJNX72Lk0Ksnsg7i8T6CPnEeJFPdFeHuKzQG4e1eH/BlLX50o/ym0aJa2M7SL ta6CyJs0G7f9Y+sHFgyeDIGX9vuHxCPahHxYAxLOyXGNJ7FUypCo2Upefovr8bPjTO51 cMrUf72XdDZdj1QK0gLgLjq5nLQuX0QMpfRIA=
Received: by 10.223.62.134 with SMTP id x6mr19305751fah.39.1317616196469; Sun, 02 Oct 2011 21:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.22.9 with HTTP; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 21:29:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201109281348.p8SDm4ui051075@calcite.rhyolite.com>
References: <4E82A074.4030406@gmail.com> <201109281348.p8SDm4ui051075@calcite.rhyolite.com>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 00:29:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEGyMbLN2_i=5p8JPnhMGLF+a12ck13c9fdoe00w=s3f3g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Vernon Schryver <vjs@rhyolite.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: 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, 03 Oct 2011 04:26:56 -0000

Hi,

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Vernon Schryver <vjs@rhyolite.com> wrote:
>> From: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com>
>
>> Actually, there is one useful thing that this WG could do before its
>> demise: update or obsolete RFC 3818 so that necessary work can be done
>> when it (the WG) is gone.
>
> RFC 3818 does nothing but require that IANA demand IETF consensus (not
> necessarily consensus in this WG) before assigning new numbers in some
> address spaces.  ...
>
> ...

Actually, you can't make IANA Consideration criteria for assignment
dependent on approval by a Working Group because IETF Working Groups
are considered transient entities, notwithstanding that some WGs have
been around for a long time.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email