Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pppext-mppe-keys-01.txt

From: "Beadles, Mark A." <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 15:27:58 -0400

From: David Wagner [mailto:[email-masked]]
>I propose that, for an IETF standard such as PPP, either (1) the
>choice of this "magic number" must be clearly and thoroughly explained,
>or (2) the "magic number" must be eliminated from the standard.

From the draft: 
>Category: Informational 

>This memo
>does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  

+ Mark Anthony Beadles +  UUNET Product Development  + 
+  [email-masked]   + http://networking.us.uu.net +
+  Voice 614.723.1941  +       Fax 614.723.8407      +

---

From: David Wagner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 20:53:30 +0000 ()

Several folks have noted that the MPPE Internet-drafts are not
standards-track.  You're right -- I overlooked that.  Thanks.  I agree
that this makes these issues less important.

But I'm still under the impression that this is an appropriate forum
for comments.  (Correct me if I'm wrong.)  After all, these drafts
live in the draft-ietf-pppext-* namespace, which I understood to be
reserved for matters under consideration of the PPPEXT working group.
(That seemed to be the policy in the IPSEC working group.)  But maybe
I'm mistaken; I'm not terribly experienced in the ways of the IETF.

If the drafts are not intended to be a product of the working group,
I suggest that they should be named draft-zorn-* in the future so they
do not falsely acquire the appearance of being endorsed as a working
document of an IETF working group.

A nit, to be sure, but I think it behooves us to make sure the IETF is
not seen as endorsing crypto protocols of questionable technical merit.

---

From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 19:56:24 -0700 (PDT)

On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, David Wagner wrote:

> for comments.  (Correct me if I'm wrong.)  

Not wrong.  Since I was (undoubtedly inadvertantly) dropped from this list
and only recently re-subscribed, perhaps you could fill me in.

> After all, these drafts

There is no 'false acquisition' happening here.

> not seen as endorsing crypto protocols of questionable technical merit.

So what, exactly, is the question?  Or, more precisely perhaps, what is
the problem?