Subject: Re: [Pppext] Future of the PPP WG

From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 13:44:58 +0700

On 9/29/2011 6:18 PM, William Allen Simpson wrote:

> On 9/28/11 12:20 AM, Glen Zorn wrote:
>> Actually, there is one useful thing that this WG could do before its
>> demise: update or obsolete RFC 3818 so that necessary work can be done
>> when it (the WG) is gone.
>>
> Glen, what needs to be changed?  I didn't pay any particular attention
> to it at the time, 

You're not alone, Bill: not much attention was called to it (at least in
pppext).  It was an individual submission (kind of ironic, considering
that the evil it purports to fix is the lack of WG review).  IIRC, I was
unaware of its existence until the announcement of its publication.

> but this really looks like a one-off RFC to update
> some kind of IANA considerations.  It doesn't appear to be idiotic.

Not idiotic at all; the author is not an idiot.  Diabolical, maybe, but
not idiotic.

...

---

From: William Allen Simpson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 07:14:26 -0400

> unaware of its existence until the announcement of its publication.
It _was_ an odd thing for an individual submission, but I wasn't too
worried about it, as it was proposed in a draft sent to the list.

I went back and looked at my list archives, and found that I'd not even
ever read half the messages about it.  It came out of a series of posts on
the Subject: Re: Reigning in "bad" extensions to PPP.

At the time, I did read the first few messages with each new Subject line:
    proposed draft IANA Considerations
    I-D ACTION:draft-schryver-pppext-iana-00.txt
    IANA PPP considerations
    IANA Considerations for PPP to Proposed Standard

Again, what needs to be changed?

> Not idiotic at all; the author is not an idiot.  Diabolical, maybe, but
I've an informal personal rule going back to the early '90s against
responding to Schryver's usual provocative rants, and had kill filed him
for some years.  I'd say more of a troll than diabolical.

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 00:29:35 -0400

Hi,

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>
>
> RFC 3818 does nothing but require that IANA demand IETF consensus (not
> necessarily consensus in this WG) before assigning new numbers in some
> address spaces.  ...
>
> ...

Actually, you can't make IANA Consideration criteria for assignment
dependent on approval by a Working Group because IETF Working Groups
are considered transient entities, notwithstanding that some WGs have
been around for a long time.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 00:30:05 -0400

Hi Bill,

I don't think your personal opinion of Vernon Schryver is relevant or
appropriate to be posted here.

Thanks,
Donald