Re: LCP echo request/reply support over multilink interface (RFC 1990)

Y Prasad wrote:
> James,
> 
> I understand all the options we have :)
> Just wanted make effort to convey the reason for this interoperability
> and prevent such of these at the next draft if possible.

I think the prospects for "prevention" are dim at best.  The peers that
want to send these messages without asking first can already do so, and
will continue to do so regardless of what sort of position we take in
this working group.  RFC 1990 is out the door; we can't reasonably
recall it.  There's no way to "force" the negotiation you're hoping for
to occur, because publishing a new RFC doesn't force anyone to conform.

Rather, it works the other way around: if you have a bunch of people who
want to conform to a single specification (and have the money and skill
to spend on development), then having a published RFC is a good way of
making sure that they're all driving in the same direction.  The
document is a guide, not a reliable demand for posterity.

Although we may disagree on the right new language to use in the
document (I would argue for "must reply" and "should not request"), I
think we do agree that there's a lack of specificity here, and it's one
that may lead to interoperability problems.  It is something that ought
to be fixed, regardless of whether it will actually help your situation
(it won't) or whether it's an important issue in context (I don't think
it is).

-- 
James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W         <[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext