Re: [Pppext] Advancing PPP RFCs to Standard, updating Security

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Wed, 22 May 2013 14:26 UTC

Return-Path: <narten@us.ibm.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 D14E321F9346 for <pppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2013 07:26:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 2XE3Nm-a6Vyc for <pppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2013 07:26:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from e7.ny.us.ibm.com (e7.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.137]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 548F621F92BC for <pppext@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2013 07:26:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from /spool/local by e7.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for <pppext@ietf.org> from <narten@us.ibm.com>; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:26:24 -0400
Received: from d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com (9.56.250.167) by e7.ny.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.107) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:26:14 -0400
Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69EB76E838F for <pppext@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:25:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r4MEPhY2180068 for <pppext@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:25:43 -0400
Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r4MEPhVN029285 for <pppext@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:25:43 -0300
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-176-249.mts.ibm.com [9.65.176.249]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id r4MEPfvs029096 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 22 May 2013 11:25:43 -0300
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.12.5) with ESMTP id r4MEPbeZ027627; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:25:37 -0400
Message-Id: <201305221425.r4MEPbeZ027627@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
In-reply-to: <CAF4+nEFseyZrSivPZ_N-DZVv4uMpeRHiu3iofzgaXpnq3OXe2Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF4+nEFseyZrSivPZ_N-DZVv4uMpeRHiu3iofzgaXpnq3OXe2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> message dated "Sun, 12 May 2013 06:01:00 -0400."
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 10:25:37 -0400
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-TM-AS-MML: No
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
x-cbid: 13052214-5806-0000-0000-00002142FB32
Cc: IETF PPP Extensions <pppext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Pppext] Advancing PPP RFCs to Standard, updating Security
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: Wed, 22 May 2013 14:26:38 -0000

Given the recent observable history of this group, I'm skeptical that
it has energy to do anything. 

Advancing stuff up the Standards Track is always a worthy goal, and no
doubt our newest AD would prefer WGs doing something rather than
nothing, but is it really worth the effort?

Personally, I don't see the need for this WG anymore. It was left
chartered back when I was AD (even though it had no real work left to
do even then) for the specific reason that the IETF was still getting
PPP (and PPPoE) related drafts sent to the RFC editor that needed
review and needed a WG to say "the WG doesn't want to do that".

Those days seem long gone now...

Thomas