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

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."
> 
OK.  I'd say "... split termination with inter-media protocol translation,
and use standard Internet Protocol routing instead."

Just so it's very clear that there's a box there doing work, probably
involves software, monitoring, passing packets between two interfaces
that require packet translation, and most other features of an INTER-net
router, but not actually meeting the router requirements.

After all, as the Cisco folks are saying, it's not "THE router" -- by
which they mean their expensive router, as opposed to the other vendor's
simpler box.

-- 
William Allen Simpson
     Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32

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