Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG

Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net> Wed, 28 September 2011 06:34 UTC

Return-Path: <mark@townsley.net>
X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 046A121F8BE7 for <pppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 23:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LJIf0HEcm0Ze for <pppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 23:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32CC121F8BE4 for <pppext@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 23:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwf22 with SMTP id 22so5616127wwf.13 for <pppext@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 23:37:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.7.15 with SMTP id b15mr8717611wbb.75.1317191851080; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 23:37:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.108] (dan75-4-82-239-58-63.fbx.proxad.net. [82.239.58.63]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s30sm9260865wbm.12.2011.09.27.23.37.28 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 27 Sep 2011 23:37:29 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEFNPkZsnkDw_T0ehjTAdHTK4OMJ6kf8H39xYGRHSxaPkA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:37:26 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <AE1F2444-82DD-40CD-AB59-4D06DBE24C15@townsley.net>
References: <CAF4+nEF-G1zpRABffyT+fpx=Oc0__u1Yth6oK-1UWLTqEgCRVg@mail.gmail.com> <CAF4+nEFNPkZsnkDw_T0ehjTAdHTK4OMJ6kf8H39xYGRHSxaPkA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: IETF PPP Extensions <pppext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG
X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PPP Extensions <pppext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pppext>, <mailto:pppext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pppext>
List-Post: <mailto:pppext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pppext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext>, <mailto:pppext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 06:34:45 -0000

On Sep 27, 2011, at 9:31 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:

> There will not be a PPPEXT meeting in Taiwan.

And a "get-together" of PPP old-far^H^H^Htimers?

- Mark

> 
> Probably next week, I'll review this thread and post my conclusions.
> 
> Thanks,
> Donald
> =============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>  d3e3e3@gmail.com
> 
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> In case you were unaware, I am now the Chair of PPPEXT.
>> 
>> Generally, there has been little activity in this WG for some years.
>> Although I believe it serves a useful purpose in examining PPP
>> proposals, possibly that purpose could be served by just continuing
>> the mailing list. In any case, it seems likely that, if the situation
>> continues unchanged, the WG will be dissolved sometime early next
>> year.
>> 
>> In the process of producing RFC 6361, it became very apparent that the
>> PPP security RFCs, such as they are, meet few, if any, modern IETF
>> security guidelines. I believe that there should be an update of PPP
>> security or, if an effort to update them fails for some reason, then
>> at least old / inadequate / unimplemented PPP security RFCs should be
>> declared historic.
>> 
>> My suggestion is that PPPEXT re-Charter to include a goal such as the
>> above and I'm willing to try drafting a new Charter but welcome
>> suggestions and comments on all this.
>> 
>> One question is, should PPPEXT have a 1 hour meeting at the November
>> IETF meeting? I think that would be the best way to come to consensus
>> on this but obviously only if enough people would plan to actually
>> attend. So, I'd be interested in who is would attend and any opinions
>> for or against such a meeting.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Donald
>> =============================
>>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>>  d3e3e3@gmail.com
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pppext mailing list
> Pppext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext