Re: forging a new pppext charter

> Our current working group charter is out of date and doesn't really
> reflect what we need to do.  I propose that we start discussing now a
> new charter for the group[1], with a goal of producing a new charter
> by March 1st.

> Some items that I think need to be filled in:

> 	- Identification of existing standards-track RFCs to be
>           updated, with an eye toward advancement in maturity.

I think this is a good goal

> 	- Names of volunteers to serve as document editors for those
>           updates.

But the goal is meaningless if there are no volunteers to do the
work...

> 	- Any holes that might exist -- such as, for example, any
>           "don't do this" documents that we might need to leave for
>           posterity.  (E.g., "fast reconnect")

> 	- The on-going purpose of the group, if any.  (E.g., "serves
>           as expert review for proposed PPP extensions.")

I'd like to support that a WG exist for this task. It has proven
useful over the last few years for the pppext WG to review PPP-related
documents and say "no thanks" to the bad ideas.

The IESG discussed the PPPEXT WG recently, noting that having the WG
for the above reason was useful, but also recognizing that it doesn't
make sense to charter a WG with milestones that it won't actually
deliver on. Traditionally, the IESG hasn't chartered WGs that have no
deliverables. However, this WG is one that could be described as a
"maintenance WG". Doesn't really have any concrete deliverables,
doesn't meet at face-to-face meetings but exists to deal with issues
as they come up. The IESG indicated it would be willing to charter
such an WG so long at it was clear that this was being chartered as a
bit of an experiment as a "maintenance group". I'd like to see this
done.

Thoughts?

Thomas