Re: [Pppext] new PPP-related individual submission

[Vernon Schryver <[e-mail]>]

> From: James Carlson <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>rg>,
>         "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>om>,
>         VILLEFRANQUE Alain RD-BIZZ <[e-mail]>om>,
>         GRIMAULT Jean-Luc RD-MAPS <[e-mail]>om>,
>         LEVIS Pierre RD-BIZZ <[e-mail]>om>,
>         "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>


> If there are others on the list with opinions, I'd like to hear from them.

I've not seen a cogent response to the J.Carlson's point that instead
of PPP, DHCP is a far better place to solve the problem for theoretical
architectural or layering reasons as well as practical implementation
reasons.


> But I don't think it's wise to include Configure-Ack 0.0.0.0 as one of
> the possible solutions to this problem.  It's misleading at best, and
> very likely to cause interoperability problems and very strange failure
> modes.

That description Configure-Ack 0.0.0.0 is extremely polite and gentle.
With permission and a promise of amnesty for being other than polite,
I would say a little what I think of any proposal that includes
Configure-Ack 0.0.0.0 even just as an alternative.


> > Med: Sorry, I cannot control this. This is added automatically.

>From context, "this" appears to refer to the following notice on
M.Boucadair's email about his proposal:

] This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. 
] Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited.
Messages are susceptible to alteration. 
] France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified.
] If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender.
] 

> Might I suggest a gmail or other free account?
>
> It really does come down to an issue of legal liability.  Including that
> note on your messages virtually guarantees that some folks will refuse
> to engage in any constructive discussion on this thread -- even if they
> agree with you and wish to support the proposal -- and greatly muddies
> the waters if Nokia ever does decide to pursue IPR.

That's a good point, but isn't it too late to switch to gmail?
Since he has evidently been willingly and knowingly including those
notices on his comments, isn't the entire IETF including the PPP and
DHCP WGs prohibited from considering them?  Doesn't M.Boucadair's
statement about those notices require that we take cognisance of the
notices and treat everything he has said and might later say from any
account about his proposal as contrary to the IETF "Note Well"?  See
http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html
No reasonable and prudent person ignores assertions of confidentiality
of technical discussions.


Vernon Schryver    [e-mail]