Re: forging a new pppext charter

Vernon Schryver writes:
> > Yes; I think we need to identify those first, before publishing a
> > charter with those goals, or just give that up for now as a goal and
> > wait until people either step forward or forget about the problem.
> 
> It would be best to decide first which if any PPP RFCs need updates,
> and only then consider volunteers.  Not to put too fine a point on it,
> people who would volunteer to update an unspecified RFC are likely to
> be go-ers who should not be allowed to work on any RFC.

I'm pretty sure that 1332 needs updating, especially appendix A.  I'm
less sure about the others.

> A moment's thought reminds me of significant defects in all of the
> main PPP RFCs.  However, opening the gates to change would be dangerous.
> Perhaps PPP is now see as old, stable, and boring enough to not attract
> wonderful ideas .  If not, as much energy would be spent preventing
> persistent bad ideas such as fast re-connect without authentication
> as fixing the fixable bugs.

I'd like to see folks who volunteer to do this "helped" into removing
stale bits from the existing RFCs and embellishing as little as
possible.

We always have the option of terminating such an effort if it goes
south, and if it starts to look like the way-too-much efforts I've
seen in other working groups (not naming names ...), I'll certainly
propose that.

> Fixing some major old bugs such as authentication after LCP should
> not be considered.  It's too late to make such major changes.

Agreed.

> > Recommendations for future working group efforts:
> 
> That's a good start for a list.  
> I'm not sure I agree with some of the items, but I think it would be
> good to get a big list before trimming it.

That's the idea.

> Among items not listed is compression.  The ancient IESG "compromise"
> for dealing with the patent problems by making all compression
> "Informational" is no longer necessary for the patents that have expired
> and inconsistent with the current IETF rules on patents.  Besides,
> there are far more compression algorthms sort-of standarized than used
> in real life.

That sounds like a good topic:

	- should some or all of the existing CCP algorithms be moved
          over to standards track?

	- should RFC 1915 be marked Historic?

> P.S.  I generally don't like the standard hossannas because they are
>   usually pro forma.   However, Karl Fox's years of service to the
>   IETF and this working group were exceptional.  His technically
>   accurate and polite but firm chairmanship was quite valuable.

I'm certainly hoping he's not planning to fall off the Earth.  ;-}

-- 
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