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

Vernon Schryver wrote:

>>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?
>  
>
I don't think draft-haag is talking about the same thing as draft-bberry.

>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