> 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.
Hmm.. If someone wants to publish a document that is somewhere between
"bad idea" and "not necessary, but not fatally dangerous", and the WG
that clearly owns the protocol space at issue goes on record saying
they are opposed to it, isn't publishing the document and end run
around the IETF?
This may be splitting hairs, but....
>> 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.
Oh, I misread this. I am opposed to publishing the document at
all.
Thomas