RE: warning suggestions for draft-bberry-pppoe-credit

>   "The techniques described in this document will not be applicable
>   to all radio implementations. This document describes extensions 
>   better applied to radios with point-to-point transmission 
>   characteristics (e.g. TDMA). When used with multi-access, broadcast
>   capable radios such as 802.11, these techniques may have unpredictable
>   interactions with higher and lower layers."

That text has nothing to do with the intent of the other text.  It tries
to apply the impremature of the IETF to the proposal.  It is also simply
wrong on technial grounds.  (e.g. "radios with point-to-point transmission
characteristics" is bogus.)  For comparison, here is the other text:

  The PPP Extensions Working Group (pppext) has reservations about
  the desirability of the feature described in this document.  In
  particular, it solves a general problem at an inappropriate layer
  and it may have unpredictable interactions with higher and lower
  level protocols.  The consensus of the working group is that
  implementors would be better advised either to seek ways of making
  the underlying radio link suitable for general Ethernet-like use, or
  to abandon the incomplete emulation of Ethernet entirely.

Unless alternate text that says that the WG *does not* like the
proposal and perhaps a little of why, the original text must be used.


As James Carlson also wrote:

]                         (Please -- no matter which side of this divide
] you're on -- direct your flames to /dev/null.  Yes, I and the rest of
] the folks here know all of the arguments on both sides.  We don't need
] to go over the issues again.)



Vernon Schryver    [email protected]

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