Re: [Pppext] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC2637 (4790)

Megan Ferguson <> Tue, 13 September 2016 22:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2902212B0E7 for <>; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 15:20:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.129
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.129 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.508, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nlYh25-pL3e7 for <>; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 15:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A5DE12B0DB for <>; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 15:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC9931E5A0B; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 15:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oz5h3_z1XjXC; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 15:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7B6F91E5A07; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 15:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Megan Ferguson <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 15:20:49 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Kory Hamzeh <>, James Carlson <>,
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <>
Cc:,, Suresh Krishnan <>,, RFC System <>,, Terry Manderson <>
Subject: Re: [Pppext] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC2637 (4790)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: PPP Extensions <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 22:20:55 -0000


Thank you for your input on this errata report.

In researching this case, we see a message from the IESG that states:

The IESG has approved the Internet-Draft 'Point-to-Point Tunneling
Protocol (PPTP)' <draft-ietf-pppext-pptp-10.txt> as an Informational
RFC.  This document is the product of the Point-to-Point Protocol
Extensions Working Group.  The IESG contact persons and Thomas Narten
and Erik Nordmark.

We also see the following IESG Note on the document itself:


   The PPTP protocol was developed by a vendor consortium. The
   documentation of PPTP is provided as information to the Internet
   community. The PPP WG is currently defining a Standards Track
   protocol (L2TP) for tunneling PPP across packet-switched networks.

So we have left the source as ppext for the time being. Please let us know
if you feel the message was inaccurate in 1999.

Note that we have gone ahead and updated the status of this errata report 
to “Verified” (as this change seems to be purely editorial in nature anyway).

We note that the document contains similar pointers to Section 2.2 in the 
following sections (in addition to the one pointed to in Section 2.2 originally):

2.4, 2.6, 2.8, 2.10, 2.13

We have updated the notes field of the errata report to mention these cases as 
well.  Please let us know any objection.

Thank you.

RFC Editor/mf

On Sep 1, 2016, at 10:48 AM, Kory Hamzeh <> wrote:

> That is correct. I was one of the authors of the RFC. All of the people I knew at Microsoft who I worked with me on PPTP are no longer there. Note that I was never an employee of Microsoft. I was working for Ascend and PPTP was originally based on an Ascend VPN protocol that I had developed.
>> On Sep 1, 2016, at 4:48 AM, James Carlson <> wrote:
>> On 09/01/16 04:27, RFC Errata System wrote:
>>> Corrected Text
>>> --------------
>>>  Error Code               This field is set to 0 unless a "General
>>>                           Error" exists, in which case Result Code is
>>>                           set to 2 and this field is set to the value
>>>                           corresponding to the general error condition
>>>                           as specified in section 2.16.
>> The change makes sense to me, but this isn't a product of the PPPEXT
>> working group.  The RFC is Informational, and I believe that PPTP is
>> Microsoft's product.
>> -- 
>> James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W         <>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pppext mailing list