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

[James Carlson <[e-mail]>]

William Allen Simpson writes:
> While I, for one, would not! Merely describing the protocol deployment
> environment is a part of the specification, not a WG warning about the
> poor design.

I had intended to integrate that text into the previous warning, not
replace, and was just word-smithing the subset to get the commentary
on the original usage case right.  Something like this:

  "The PPP Extensions Working Group (pppext) has reservations about
  the desirability of the feature described in this document.  In
  particular, it solves a general problem at an inappropriate layer
  and it may have unpredictable interactions with higher and lower
  level protocols.  The techniques described in this document are
  intended for use with a particular deployment technique that uses a
  PPP termination separated from a radio termination by an Ethernet,
  and that has radio-side flow control for a slower PPP-only link to
  remote nodes.  Implementors are better advised to avoid split
  termination and use traditional IP routing instead."

-- 
James Carlson, KISS Network                    <[e-mail]>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive         71.232W   Vox [phone]
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax [phone]

_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext