Re: Future of the PPP WG

Hi Mark,

On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Mark Townsley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> OK, I stand corrected. I was thinking of the charter that had existed bef=
ore
> and during my tenure as AD:
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/pppext/charters?item=3Dcharter-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=A0specifications, and if a need =
for
> such work comes up, a recharter is=A0required."

Not only is that a problem for security documents, if any are desired,
but it tripped up RFC 6361 that ended up having a four week IETF Last
Call to fix the problem.

Thanks,
Donald
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D
=A0Donald E. Eastlake 3rd=A0=A0 +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
=A0155 Beaver Street,=A0Milford, MA 01757 USA
[email protected]

> This looks like Jari's handiwork, he just loves to recharter WGs ;-)
> With this new sentence, yes, it looks like pppext is unnecessarily hamstr=
ung
> from advancing enhancements that the group does *not* think are of
> questionable value.
> - Mark
>
>
> On Sep 9, 2011, at 8:26 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Mark Townsley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Sep 9, 2011, at 1:33 PM, Glen Zorn wrote:
>
> Actually I wrote the following:
>
> 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 would attend and any opinions
>
> for or against such a meeting.
>
> PPPEXT hasn't met in, what, 10 years or more? The charter hasn't changed
>
> significantly since Thomas Narten was AD. I seriously doubt a physical
>
> meeting is worth having in what are already jam-packed IETF meetings. =A0=
If
>
> you have any PPP experts there, it will be because folks like Glen, James,
>
> and others happen to have moved on to other areas that require IETF
>
> presence.
>
> I don't have any particular problem operating PPPEXT without meetings,
> if that is what people want, either under the current charter or an
> expanded charter to do some security stuff.
>
> If you are dead set on a recharter (personally, I like the pppext charter,
>
> and pointed to it as a good example of a "dormant but useful" WG several
>
> times as AD) then round up the PPP guys that are still around and chat wi=
th
>
> them in the hallway and take it to the list. It could even be a fun bar
>
> outing, looking back on the good old 90s... perhaps we could get Craig and
>
> Karl Fox to dig up some memorabilia.
>
> Well, it caused some difficulties with the TRILL over PPP draft that
> the current charter prohibits the WG producing any documents, which
> seems to also rule out the WG updating any security documents.
> Furthermore, I believe that our AD is inclined to shut down the WG if
> the current situation doesn't change.
>
> But, please don't make Marcia deal with what to her will look like a brand
>
> new WG to deal with scheduling.
>
> Everything has benefits and costs. That it takes some effort to
> schedule a meeting for a group that has not met in a long time does
> not seem like the exclusively controlling factor to me.
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> =A0Donald E. Eastlake 3rd=A0=A0 +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
> =A0155 Beaver Street,=A0Milford, MA 01757 USA
> [email protected]
>
> - Mark
>
> I would attend if I had no irreconcilable conflicts.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Pppext mailing list
>
> [email protected]
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext