Re: Future of the PPP WG

On 10/2/11 2:44 AM, Glen Zorn wrote:
> On 9/29/2011 6:18 PM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
>> On 9/28/11 12:20 AM, Glen Zorn wrote:
>>> Actually, there is one useful thing that this WG could do before its
>>> demise: update or obsolete RFC 3818 so that necessary work can be done
>>> when it (the WG) is gone.
>>>
>> Glen, what needs to be changed?  I didn't pay any particular attention
>> to it at the time,
>
> You're not alone, Bill: not much attention was called to it (at least in
> pppext).  It was an individual submission (kind of ironic, considering
> that the evil it purports to fix is the lack of WG review).  IIRC, I was
> unaware of its existence until the announcement of its publication.
>
It _was_ an odd thing for an individual submission, but I wasn't too
worried about it, as it was proposed in a draft sent to the list.

I went back and looked at my list archives, and found that I'd not even
ever read half the messages about it.  It came out of a series of posts on
the Subject: Re: Reigning in "bad" extensions to PPP.

At the time, I did read the first few messages with each new Subject line:
    proposed draft IANA Considerations
    I-D ACTION:draft-schryver-pppext-iana-00.txt
    IANA PPP considerations
    IANA Considerations for PPP to Proposed Standard

Again, what needs to be changed?


>> but this really looks like a one-off RFC to update
>> some kind of IANA considerations.  It doesn't appear to be idiotic.
>
> Not idiotic at all; the author is not an idiot.  Diabolical, maybe, but
> not idiotic.
>
I've an informal personal rule going back to the early '90s against
responding to Schryver's usual provocative rants, and had kill filed him
for some years.  I'd say more of a troll than diabolical.
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext