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

> From: James Carlson <[email protected]>

> > Broken.  Yes, I said broken.  PPPoE is broken.  A PPP-over-Ethernet- 
> > over-radio design that needs new options to work properly is, by  
> > definition, also broken.  Broken because the designers designed their  
> > product improperly.  And now they want us to accept their broken  
> > design as OK by standardizing it.
>
> Agreed; the whole thing is swilly.
>
> However, I disagree with that last bit.  The only intent here is to
> publish as Informational (not Standards Track), and to make sure it's
> specified to be minimally harmful.

Let's be honest with ourselves.  If the difference between "Informational"
and "Standards Track" were real, there would be no need to add the
deprecating text to this proposal.  The intent is for the IETF to OK
or standardize the proposal exactly as much as PPPoE was OK'ed or
standardized by the IETF.  Some original advocates of PPPoE as well as
some advocates of this notion have doubtless convinced themselves that
there is a difference between the status as a standard of RFC 2516 or
this proposal and RFC 793, but that difference is imperceptable to all
implementors, buyers, installers, maintainers, and users.

Let's also admit that, as the stronger title and words in RFC 1055
proved, the suggested deprecating words for this proposal will have very
little and probably no effect on implementors, buyers, etc.
These deprecating words can only salvage a little of the self-respect
of all of use including advocates for the idea and warn off advocates
of worse ideas such as the recent proposal concerning quantum mechanics.
The words might at most affect the IETF itself, much as the deprecating
words in RFC 1055 built momentum for PPP.


Vernon Schryver    [email protected]

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