Re: DNP for draft-song-pppext-sip-support-02.txt

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

I am in doubt.

The WG did not say that the extension was harmful.
The WG has no ongoing work that addresses the same needs.

So it's a full-blown "alternative way to do things", with no impact on the 
IETF.

Should we instead write an IESG note saying:

IESG NOTE:
This document has been considered and rejected by the IETF PPPEXT working 
group. The PPPEXT WG thinks that existing mechanisms are adequate for the 
task this mechanism is designed for, and that it therefore adds nothing but 
complexity. The IESG therefore recommends against using this mechanism.

(Pass text by PPPEXT chairs to see if that's what the WG thinks, of course)

--On tirsdag, juni 17, 2003 12:19:09 -0400 Thomas Narten 
<narten@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> This document arrived via an RFC editor request to publish as
> informational. I recommend that it not be published.
>
> Proposed note:
>
> The IESG requests that this document not be published as an RFC. The
> document proposes extensions to PPP that are not supported by the
> WG. Specifically, in response to discussion on the PPPEXT mailing
> list, the WG chair reported "I think the consensus is clear: Existing
> mechanisms are adequate to the task." Publishing this document would
> be considered an end run around the wishes of the PPPEXT WG.
>
> Thomas