Re: [Pppext] warning suggestions for draft-bberry-pppoe-credit

Frankly, I agree with Vern.  Why can't the WG simply tell the IESG  
that it's a bad idea because the need is based on a defective product  
design?  Surely they'd understand that--they're protocol designers,  
too.  Who knows, maybe they'd say no, too.

Karl

On Dec 9, 2005, at 10:50 AM, Vernon Schryver wrote:
>> From: James Carlson <james.d.carlson@sun.com>
>
>>> Broken.  Yes, I said broken.  PPPoE is broken.  A PPP-over-Ethernet-
>>> over-radio design that needs new options to work properly is, by
>>> definition, also broken.  Broken because the designers designed  
>>> their
>>> product improperly.  And now they want us to accept their broken
>>> design as OK by standardizing it.
>>
>> Agreed; the whole thing is swilly.
>>
>> However, I disagree with that last bit.  The only intent here is to
>> publish as Informational (not Standards Track), and to make sure it's
>> specified to be minimally harmful.
>
> Let's be honest with ourselves.  If the difference between  
> "Informational"
> and "Standards Track" were real, there would be no need to add the
> deprecating text to this proposal.  The intent is for the IETF to OK
> or standardize the proposal exactly as much as PPPoE was OK'ed or
> standardized by the IETF.  Some original advocates of PPPoE as well as
> some advocates of this notion have doubtless convinced themselves that
> there is a difference between the status as a standard of RFC 2516 or
> this proposal and RFC 793, but that difference is imperceptable to all
> implementors, buyers, installers, maintainers, and users.
>
> Let's also admit that, as the stronger title and words in RFC 1055
> proved, the suggested deprecating words for this proposal will have  
> very
> little and probably no effect on implementors, buyers, etc.
> These deprecating words can only salvage a little of the self-respect
> of all of use including advocates for the idea and warn off advocates
> of worse ideas such as the recent proposal concerning quantum  
> mechanics.
> The words might at most affect the IETF itself, much as the  
> deprecating
> words in RFC 1055 built momentum for PPP.
>
>
> Vernon Schryver    vjs@rhyolite.com

_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
Pppext@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext