Subject: [Pppext] Advancing PPP RFCs to Standard, updating Security

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 06:01:00 -0400

Hi,

Our AD is interested in a plan to upgrade appropriate PPP standards
track RFCs to full Standard. A change in state can, under the right
circumstances, be done without a new RFC.

I think it would be appropriate, as I have suggested before, to review
the PPP security RFCs with a view, in each case, to moving to Historic
those which don't meet modern security standards or to obsolete them
with a new version which does... The later would require a Charter
change.

To quote from the existing PPPEXT Charter: "The group may, however,
advance existing specifications to the next level in the standards
track, if a need for that comes up. Similarly, the group may classify
existing specifications as Historic where this is appropriate."

I'd be interested in any comments. If there is any desire for a brief
meeting in Berlin to discuss this sort of thing, this would be a good
time to request it. (I just noticed that the session request tool has
an option to request a 1/2 hour meeting which I never noticed before.
While WGs have had very short meetings, I can't recall one scheduled
for less than 1 hour...) I suspect such a meeting at the next IETF
Meeting in Berlin is not necessary...

Thanks,
Donald [PPPEXT Chair]
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 15:55:38 -0700

I see no point in creating new PPP security standards at this point. 

On May 12, 2013, at 3:01 AM, "Donald Eastlake" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Pppext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext

---

From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 12:33:16 +0700

> I see no point in creating new  PPP security standards at this point.
I agree.

 >> Our AD is interested in a plan to upgrade appropriate PPP
 >> standards track RFCs to full Standard. A change in state can, under
 >> the right circumstances, be done without a new RFC.
 >>
 >> I think it would be appropriate, as I have suggested before, to
 >> review the PPP security RFCs with a view, in each case, to moving
 >> to Historic those which don't meet modern security standards or to
 >> obsolete them with a new version which does... The later would
 >> require a Charter change.
 >>
 >> To quote from the existing PPPEXT Charter: "The group may,
 >> however, advance existing specifications to the next level in the
 >> standards track, if a need for that comes up. Similarly, the group
 >> may classify existing specifications as Historic where this is
 >> appropriate."
 >>
 >> I'd be interested in any comments. If there is any desire for a
 >> brief meeting in Berlin to discuss this sort of thing, this would
 >> be a good time to request it. (I just noticed that the session
 >> request tool has an option to request a 1/2 hour meeting which I
 >> never noticed before. While WGs have had very short meetings, I
 >> can't recall one scheduled for less than 1 hour...) I suspect such
 >> a meeting at the next IETF Meeting in Berlin is not necessary...
 >>
 >> Thanks, Donald [PPPEXT Chair] ============================= Donald
 >> E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street,
 >> Milford, MA 01757 USA [email-masked]
 >> _______________________________________________ Pppext mailing
 >> list [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext
 > _______________________________________________ Pppext mailing list
 > [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext

---

From: Karl Fox <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 08:54:02 -0400

Likewise. If they don't meet current security standards, any changes we
make are certainly not going to be widely implemented.

Karl

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Glen Zorn <[email-masked]> wrote:

> >> ______________________________**_________________ Pppext mailing
> >> list [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/pppext<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext>
> > ______________________________**_________________ Pppext mailing list
> > [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/pppext<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Pppext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/pppext<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext>
>

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 02:59:20 -0400

Hi,

Thanks for the feedback thus far on security. Further feedback welcome.

I continue to be inclined against having a WG meeting in Berlin.

I may have overstated our AD's interest in advancing PPP standards,
Brian is perhaps closer to neutral on the idea.

Thanks,
Donald

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 10:25:37 -0400

Given the recent observable history of this group, I'm skeptical that
it has energy to do anything. 

Advancing stuff up the Standards Track is always a worthy goal, and no
doubt our newest AD would prefer WGs doing something rather than
nothing, but is it really worth the effort?

Personally, I don't see the need for this WG anymore. It was left
chartered back when I was AD (even though it had no real work left to
do even then) for the specific reason that the IETF was still getting
PPP (and PPPoE) related drafts sent to the RFC editor that needed
review and needed a WG to say "the WG doesn't want to do that".

Those days seem long gone now...

Thomas