Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG

James Carlson <> Wed, 28 September 2011 12:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF62521F8C91 for <>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 05:29:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h8qd7mmL+Y-X for <>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 05:29:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1d9::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44DD721F8C56 for <>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 05:29:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.2+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p8SCWIZ7021839 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:32:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:32:18 -0400
From: James Carlson <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (X11/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Glen Zorn <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-DCC-URT-Metrics: carlson; whitelist
Cc: IETF PPP Extensions <>
Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PPP Extensions <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:29:45 -0000

Glen Zorn wrote:
> On 9/28/2011 2:31 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
>> There will not be a PPPEXT meeting in Taiwan.
>> Probably next week, I'll review this thread and post my conclusions.
> 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.

Please clarify: an update in what way?  The existing document requires
"IETF Consensus" for a certain set of protocol numbers in order to
ensure that any work that's done has meaningful review.  I think this is
a good thing, and certainly should not be considered "obsolete."

In the absence of an IETF PPPEXT WG, I'd expect that any "necessary
work" in these areas would be done in the context of (and likely in
service to) some other working group, with others outside that group
solicited for comment as needed.  "PPPEXT" then becomes as necessary to
the process as would be an "ICMPEXT" group.

If anything, I think RFC 3818 should be strengthened, not abandoned.

James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W         <>