Re: Review of draft-bberry-pppoe-credit (Informational)

> To: Mark Townsley <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [Pppext] Review of draft-bberry-pppoe-credit (Informational)
> Cc: [email protected], Margaret Wasserman <[email protected]>,
>         [email protected], [email protected]

Mark Townsley wrote:
> This is an individual submission document for Informational publication. 
> Without getting into whether PPPoE itself should have been strangled at 
> birth or not, I would like a fair review of this document before 
> advancing it. 

Is that an entirely accurate description of the situation with the
document?  It seems to me that it is not really being proposed as
"Informational" document to describe something that is entirely
proprietary or purely experimental.  The authors have here in the
Pppext mailing list adverted to wanting the IETF's approval for their
plan to address a difficulty.  I think they have been open about hoping
and expecting that upon IETF publication, (other?) vendors will implement
and ship their solution.

Therefore, shouldn't the IETF consider all available alternatives to
fixing the difficulty?  Instead of pushing through this document and
compounding the PPPoE mess, shouldn't the IETF consider alternatives
including the one described in draft-haag-pppext-spppoe-00.txt?

Even if the IETF cannot decide, shouldn't alternatives get the same
support by Informational publication?

Doesn't the IETF now have technical criteria even for Informational RFCs?


Vernon Schryver    [email protected]

_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext