PAP [was Re: forging a new pppext charter]

Nagi writes:
> > Sure. But even if it is in use, does that warrant a new RFC? Is there
> > something broken in the old RFC?
> >
> 
> I don't think so. But I'm not sure if any one else thinks it is broken.

The only reason to mention it was that it was somewhat on-topic for
the original list I posted: RFC 1334 is listed as "Obsoleted by
RFC1994," which technically means that the RFC is entirely replaced by
that new one -- PAP is gone, except as history.

There'd certainly be no point in writing a new RFC that was merely
Informational or Experimental on it, since it's already documented
well enough.  The reason to write a standards-track one would be to
include a modern analysis of the security (or lack thereof), and
perhaps indicate that putting binary goop in the Authenticate-Nak is a
Bad Thing.

Leaving the situation as it is seems mostly harmless to me.

-- 
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