Re: [Pppext] Charter update

James, Bill,

I have added text about declaring historic status.

James is right that any authentication work would go elsewhere. We do 
not have EAP WG anymore, but we have an active EMU WG that works on 
improvements for EAP authentication methods. I am not aware of any other 
specific security needs we have in the PPP space. If we become aware of 
something, there needs to be a specific proposal on what we should do. I 
am happy to add reasonable work to the charter, but at this point I'm 
just not aware of any, beyond the stuff we are already doing elsewhere.

Anyway, the reason for the charter update is that I would like to see 
the group's actual work match what the charter says. The previous 
charter claimed that we are actively working on advancing the RFCs; we 
haven't been doing that for a while and the charter should reflect that. 
The new charter allows this work, but stops short of making big claims 
about activity. Let me take this opportunity to solicit people to look 
at both advancing RFCs and classifying others as historic. It would be 
valuable work. Bill, do you have suggestions on what RFCs should become 
Historic?

Jari

Point-to-Point Protocol Extensions (pppext)

Last Modified: 2009-05-29

Additional information is available at tools.ietf.org/wg/pppext

Chair(s):
James Carlson <james.d.carlson@sun.com>

Internet Area Director(s):
Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>

Internet Area Advisor:
Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>

Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: pppext@ietf.org
To Subscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext
In Body: subscribe
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pppext/index.html

Description of Working Group:

The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP, RFC 1661) is a mature protocol with a
large number of subprotocols, encapsulations and other extensions. The
PPPEXT working exists to provide a forum for asking clarifications
about the existing specifications and to defend against enhancements
of questionable value. The group is not expected to create new
specifications, and if a need for such work comes up, a recharter is
required. The group may, however, advance existing specifications
to the next level in the standards track, if a need for that comes up.
Similarly, the group may classify existing specifications as Historic
where this is appropriate.

Goals and Milestones: