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...
but it's not an end-run per se around the IETF process.... and there are
lots of RFCs that nobody bothers to implement.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)?
I was unclear. If we want to say DNP, we should go with your note. I was
wondering whether proposing adding an IESG note to the document would be
more appropriate.