Re: warning suggestions for draft-bberry-pppoe-credit
Karl Fox <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.pppext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Yes, it did do an end run around PPPEXT, but since then I've seen more hints that the IESG might be willing to listen to the WG as expert on the topic and act accordingly. I say we ask them to nix the whole thing, and come back to us for text mods if they disagree. Why can't the company just fix their design? Karl On Dec 9, 2005, at 11:28 AM, Vernon Schryver wrote: >> From: Karl Fox <[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. > > I see reasons not to tell the IESG "No": > > - The IESG might refuse to go along, which would encourage more > results > like PPPoE itself. (I have no recollections of debate about PPPoE > here. Am I wrong in thinking it bypassed this WG?) > > - If the IESG went along, the idea would be published in some > "PPPoE Forum" as the best thing since sliced bread and without any > caveats, and perhaps even without the improvements that have been > made to it here. > > - We should save our very limited power to say "No" and mean it > for worse things. > > > Vernon Schryver [email protected] _______________________________________________ Pppext mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext