Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG

Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net> Fri, 09 September 2011 11:59 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 2C4F621F8AD6 for <pppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 04:59:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.433
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.433 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.165, 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 S0QxdbB1aFg1 for <pppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 04:59:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DD5B21F8ACA for <pppext@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 04:59:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyg24 with SMTP id 24so1571579wyg.31 for <pppext@ietf.org>; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 05:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.82.211 with SMTP id o61mr1793857wee.65.1315569658377; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 05:00:58 -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 ev5sm7284440wbb.11.2011.09.09.05.00.55 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 09 Sep 2011 05:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-4-107520957
From: Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net>
In-Reply-To: <4E69F98B.2050504@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 14:00:53 +0200
Message-Id: <2E733A2A-4ED6-44FF-A2CE-D57C33F36560@townsley.net>
References: <CAF4+nEF-G1zpRABffyT+fpx=Oc0__u1Yth6oK-1UWLTqEgCRVg@mail.gmail.com> <4E69F98B.2050504@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 11:59:05 -0000

On Sep 9, 2011, at 1:33 PM, Glen Zorn wrote:
>> 
>> 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 is 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. 

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. 

But, please don't make Marcia deal with what to her will look like a brand new WG to deal with scheduling.

- Mark

> 
> I would attend if I had no irreconcilable conflicts.
> _______________________________________________
> Pppext mailing list
> Pppext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext