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

> From: Karl Fox <[email protected]>

> Yes, it did do an end run around PPPEXT, 

I think I'd rather have been told I was wrong about about that.

>                                          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.

Are you sure that the PPPoE end-run was not the result of a perception
of PPPEXT as obstructionist?


> Why can't the company just fix their design?

because they won't fix their design.
Even if you doubt the literal accuracy of the comments about umptygazillion
units already installed, you must take them as indications of flexibility.

The most and best the IETF can do is refuse to allow the draft to be
withdrawn and insist that it be published with what have been called
biased words.

This is clearly not the place to debate fixing the IETF.
If it were, I'd point out that the IETF was built on the publication
of RFCs and that those Requests For Comments were just that.
The last 20 years have demonstrated that the IETF is, like every
bureaucracy or committee system, almost purely political and incapable
of self-discipline.
Therefore perhaps the best course for the IETF would be more willingness
to publish good and bad ideas, but with evaluations.
Or perhaps not.


Vernon Schryver    [email protected]

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