Subject: [Pppext] Charter update

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 15:35:24 +0300

Hello folks,

I am going through my working groups and checking if their charters are 
up to date. The current charter of PPPEXT emphasizes the work on 
advancing documents to Full Standard, whereas in reality we right now do 
very little of that. After discussion with James, we would like to make 
a small update to the charter as follows. Thoughts - comments - 
objections, anyone?

------

Point-to-Point Protocol Extensions (pppext)

Last Modified: 2009-05-18

Additional information is available at tools.ietf.org/wg/pppext

Chair(s):
James Carlson <[email-masked]>

Internet Area Director(s):
Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>

Internet Area Advisor:
Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>

Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: [email-masked]
To Subscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext
In Body: subscribe
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pppext/index.html

Description of Working Group:

The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP, RFC 1661) is a mature protocol with a
large number of subprotocols, encapsulations and other extensions. The
PPPEXT working exists to provide a forum for asking clarifications
about the existing specifications and to defend against enhancements
of questionable value. The group is not expected to create new
specifications, and if a need for such work comes up, a recharter is
required. The group may, however, advance existing specifications
to the next level in the standards track, if a need for that comes up.

Goals and Milestones:

---

From: William Allen Simpson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 17:53:22 -0400

> to the next level in the standards track, if a need for that comes up.
Seems OK, other than "not expected to create new specifications".

Recent security research has rather obsoleted the ancient authentication
and encryption specifications. Every once in awhile, I've been thinking
about writing some replacement transforms....

How about changing to: "... new specifications, other than replacing or
updating authentication, confidentiality, and improved key management
specifications. If a need for other additional work arises, ...."

Another thing that group probably ought to discuss is formally retiring
some of the ancient Proposed work as Historic.

Admittedly, we gave up on advancing things like IPCP, as IPv4 was supposedly
ready to be replaced (for the past 15 years). Ha!

---

From: James Carlson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 08:44:08 -0400

[Sorry if this message results in duplicates; mailman seems to dislike
the Sun version of me for some reason.]

> Seems OK, other than "not expected to create new specifications".

I think Jari Arkko wants the charter to match up better with reality.

> specifications. If a need for other additional work arises, ...."

Won't most of that work go on in the EAP wg?  Would we really want to
extend CHAP?

> some of the ancient Proposed work as Historic.

True.

> ready to be replaced (for the past 15 years). Ha!

:-/

If someone wanted to put the work into advancing 1332 or one of the
other old documents, I'd certainly be supportive.

-- 
James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W         <[email-masked]>

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 10:36:16 +0300

James, Bill,

I have added text about declaring historic status.

James is right that any authentication work would go elsewhere. We do 
not have EAP WG anymore, but we have an active EMU WG that works on 
improvements for EAP authentication methods. I am not aware of any other 
specific security needs we have in the PPP space. If we become aware of 
something, there needs to be a specific proposal on what we should do. I 
am happy to add reasonable work to the charter, but at this point I'm 
just not aware of any, beyond the stuff we are already doing elsewhere.

Anyway, the reason for the charter update is that I would like to see 
the group's actual work match what the charter says. The previous 
charter claimed that we are actively working on advancing the RFCs; we 
haven't been doing that for a while and the charter should reflect that. 
The new charter allows this work, but stops short of making big claims 
about activity. Let me take this opportunity to solicit people to look 
at both advancing RFCs and classifying others as historic. It would be 
valuable work. Bill, do you have suggestions on what RFCs should become 
Historic?

Jari

Last Modified: 2009-05-29

Chair(s):

Internet Area Advisor:

Mailing Lists:

Similarly, the group may classify existing specifications as Historic
where this is appropriate.

Goals and Milestones: