Subject: Re: Comments on mcml-06 and rtf-05

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:20:15 -0400

My only comment (as shown in the exchange below from yesterday) is that
both documents assume the implementor of mcml or rtf knows that MP must be
negotiated by using MRRU.  Is it standard practice to leave "assumptions"
like?   RFC1994 for CHAP specifically states that the
Authentication-Protocol Configuration Option  MUST be specified during Link
Establishment Phase. So if a protocol that is developed within the PPP
group has to explicitely state it, I really think that one that is
developed outside of it should.

Just my Canadian 2cents worth........(Canadian at that)

Connie

[email-masked] on 06/08/99 12:32:05 PM

To:   Connie Blanchard/Kan/Mitel
cc:   [email-masked]

Subject:  Re: Comments on mcml-06

Connie Blanchard writes:
> To allow multi-class MP to be used, MP must first be negotiated using the
> MRRU option in LCP.
Without the "first": Yes.
(MRRU and the MCML options of course must be present at the same time
in one Configure Request.)
> This draft only states what other MP options are
> available, should it not make reference to the fact that MRRU must be
> negotiated to be able to use the new options? Or is it just assumed that
> the implementor already knows PPP MP?
Since MCML is an extension of RFC1990 and there is no provision that
lifts this requirement from RFC1990, I considered it unnecessary to
repeat it.  Maybe this is an editorial comment that MCML should make
it more explicit that all the provisions of RFC1990 apply -- but as
the document already passed WG last call, this is a bit hard to add at
this point (I would be glad to make such a change otherwise).
> Since it states that short sequence number must not be present if
> MCML code 2 is presented, we should also state the MRRU must be.
This is because the Multilink header format option supersedes the
Short sequence number option, so it is a bad idea to have both in one
Configure Request -- this needs to be stated in the definition of the
Multilink header format option.  The MRRU option is not superseded, so
it (and the requirements on it) remain as is.
Gruesse, Carsten