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

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

> I am in doubt.

:-)

> The WG did not say that the extension was harmful.

I don't think my note says that either. :-)

> The WG has no ongoing work that addresses the same needs.

Since there are existing mechanisms to do what the author wants to do,
the WG isn't going to be doing more work here.

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

It does have impact on the IETF, because PPP implementations will have
to implement it in the end...

> 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.

s/using/publishing/

I'm OK with this. But I have one worry. Will the RFC editor consider
the above compelling enough (I had "end run" text in my note)? Maybe
I'm overly worried, but our DNP notes have tendancy to say "don't
publish this, but if you do, add the following IESG
note". Process-wise, I think it would be better for us to just say
"DNP", but if the RFC editor than disagrees, they tell us and gives
the option of adding an IESG note prior to them going forward. Saying
both DNP and including a note makes it sound like we don't want it
published, but we suspect the RFC editor will anyway, which seems a
bit odd.

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

Will do. Thanks.

Thomas

> --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 I recommend that it not be published.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 The IESG requests that this document not be published as an RFC.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
> >
> >