Re: forging a new pppext charter

James Carlson wrote:

> Recommendations for future working group efforts:
> 	- Consider writing a new Proposed Standard version of PAP to
> 	  complement RFC 1994.  I don't think that we're served well
> 	  by leaving this out, and there are certainly important cases
> 	  in which it's useful.

Your list sounds otherwise excellent, but I was surprised by this
one. Why do we need PAP, shouldn't we be making it historic instead...?
And isn't RFC 1334 already in obsoleted status? What are the important
cases where PAP is useful?

> Rough list of RFCs in scope for PPP Extensions working group:
> 
> (Very long list snipped)

Sounds like a lot of maintaining. The length of this list is
perhaps one indication of the need for the WG. But I agree that
victims have to be found for the work to take place...

--Jari