[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Fwd: Last Call: 'PPP Vendor Protocol' to Proposed Standard

To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Last Call: 'PPP Vendor Protocol' to Proposed Standard
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 09:15:48 -0500
Cc: iesg@ietf.org
In-reply-to: Message from zinin@psg.com of "Tue, 04 Nov 2003 13:43:49 PST." <3382303576.20031104134349@psg.com>

>  Given that we discourage vendor extensions, how should we look at
>  this?

Please read the document and if there is a specific issue, let's talk.

PPP already has long supported vendor-specific stuff. This document
fills in what was  essentially an oversite from long ago, in that
prior to this draft, it was cumbersome to negotiate certain vendor
specific things. This document describes the right way of doing so.

Thomas

References:
- Fwd: Last Call: 'PPP Vendor Protocol' to Proposed Standard
  - From: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>

Prev by Date: Re: draft-klensin-name-munging and well-known port request
Next by Date: what should ACLS be like?
Previous by thread: Fwd: Last Call: 'PPP Vendor Protocol' to Proposed Standard
Next by thread: what should ACLS be like?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread