RE: pppcn

Jonathan Goodchild writes:
> From: James Carlson
>  
> >> What draft/rfc describes this "pre-loading"?
> > 
> > None.  Nor is any needed, since it's really just an implementation detail.
> 
> 
> True, but could there be some value in such a draft, if only to avoid future
> unnecessary proposed protocol extensions such as this one?

I've resisted the idea in the past, only because I think it's outside
of the IETF's proper domain.  I don't think we should be specifying
implementation details here -- either software designs, APIs,
configuration mechanisms, or other such documents.  What matters is
the bits on the wire and specifying them in enough detail that all can
interoperate.  The rest is very specific to particular domains,
implementations, programming languages, other standards bodies, and
the like.

Moreover, using the IETF to specify such things (as is unfortunately
sometimes done) only encourages more of the same grot in the future.
I don't think we need any more "here's how you use HTML+HTTP+TCP+IP+
PPP+CDMA for the FooBar product line" sorts of Informational drafts
floating around.  These really aren't all that informational, and
serve no lasting purpose other than as low-cost advertising.

However, if this issue, despite all of the previous discussion
stretching back years in the ietf-ppp archives, is going to keep
coming back to life like an extra from a Cesar Romero movie, then I
guess a preemptive "please try something else" document is the only
way out.

(I'd still question the usefulness of that document somewhat, since I
don't quite see why such an Informational RFC would necessarily be any
more likely to be seen and read than are the existing working group
archives.  But perhaps it's worth a shot.)

-- 
James Carlson, IP Systems Group                <[email protected]>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive         71.234W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.497N   Fax +1 781 442 1677