Re: warning suggestions for draft-bberry-pppoe-credit
Karl Fox <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.pppext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Frankly, I agree with Vern. Why can't the WG simply tell the IESG that it's a bad idea because the need is based on a defective product design? Surely they'd understand that--they're protocol designers, too. Who knows, maybe they'd say no, too. Karl On Dec 9, 2005, at 10:50 AM, Vernon Schryver wrote: >> 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