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

Can't we work the work "broken" in there somehow?

:-)

Karl

On Dec 9, 2005, at 8:17 AM, James Carlson wrote:
> William Allen Simpson writes:
>> While I, for one, would not! Merely describing the protocol  
>> deployment
>> environment is a part of the specification, not a WG warning about  
>> the
>> poor design.
>
> I had intended to integrate that text into the previous warning, not
> replace, and was just word-smithing the subset to get the commentary
> on the original usage case right.  Something like this:
>
>   "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 techniques described in this document are
>   intended for use with a particular deployment technique that uses a
>   PPP termination separated from a radio termination by an Ethernet,
>   and that has radio-side flow control for a slower PPP-only link to
>   remote nodes.  Implementors are better advised to avoid split
>   termination and use traditional IP routing instead."
>
> -- 
> James Carlson, KISS Network                     
> <[email protected]>
> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive         71.232W   Vox +1 781 442  
> 2084
> MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442  
> 1677

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