Re: Future of the PPP WG

On 9/9/11 7:51 PM, Mark Townsley wrote:
>
> OK, I stand corrected. I was thinking of the charter that had existed before and during my tenure as AD:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/pppext/charters?item=charter-pppext-2006-07-03.txt
>
> It seems a few sentences were added in 2009, in particular the unfortunate text that says:
>
> "The group is not expected to create new specifications, and if a need for such work comes up, a recharter is required."
>
> This looks like Jari's handiwork, he just loves to recharter WGs ;-)
>
> With this new sentence, yes, it looks like pppext is unnecessarily hamstrung from advancing enhancements that the group does *not* think are of questionable value.
>
Ha!  You nailed it in one!!!

# Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 15:35:24 +0300
# From: Jari Arkko <[email protected]>
# Subject: [Pppext] Charter update
#

And my response was:

$ Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 17:53:22 -0400
$ From: William Allen Simpson <[email protected]>
$ Subject: Re: [Pppext] Charter update
$
$ Jari Arkko wrote:
$ > 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.
$ >
$ Seems OK, other than "not expected to create new specifications".
$
$ Recent security research has rather obsoleted the ancient authentication
$ and encryption specifications. Every once in awhile, I've been thinking
$ about writing some replacement transforms....
$
$ How about changing to: "... new specifications, other than replacing or
$ updating authentication, confidentiality, and improved key management
$ specifications. If a need for other additional work arises, ...."
$
$ Another thing that group probably ought to discuss is formally retiring
$ some of the ancient Proposed work as Historic.
$
$ Admittedly, we gave up on advancing things like IPCP, as IPv4 was supposedly
$ ready to be replaced (for the past 15 years). Ha!
$
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext