Subject: RE: pppcn

From: Jonathan Goodchild <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 15:52:09 +0100

From: James Carlson
 
>> What draft/rfc describes this "pre-loading"?
> 
> None.  Nor is any needed, since it's really just an implementation detail.

True, but could there be some value in such a draft, if only to avoid future
unnecessary proposed protocol extensions such as this one?

Jonathan Goodchild

---

From: James Carlson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:04:46 -0400

> unnecessary proposed protocol extensions such as this one?

I've resisted the idea in the past, only because I think it's outside
of the IETF's proper domain.  I don't think we should be specifying
implementation details here -- either software designs, APIs,
configuration mechanisms, or other such documents.  What matters is
the bits on the wire and specifying them in enough detail that all can
interoperate.  The rest is very specific to particular domains,
implementations, programming languages, other standards bodies, and
the like.

Moreover, using the IETF to specify such things (as is unfortunately
sometimes done) only encourages more of the same grot in the future.
I don't think we need any more "here's how you use HTML+HTTP+TCP+IP+
PPP+CDMA for the FooBar product line" sorts of Informational drafts
floating around.  These really aren't all that informational, and
serve no lasting purpose other than as low-cost advertising.

However, if this issue, despite all of the previous discussion
stretching back years in the ietf-ppp archives, is going to keep
coming back to life like an extra from a Cesar Romero movie, then I
guess a preemptive "please try something else" document is the only
way out.

(I'd still question the usefulness of that document somewhat, since I
don't quite see why such an Informational RFC would necessarily be any
more likely to be seen and read than are the existing working group
archives.  But perhaps it's worth a shot.)

-- 
James Carlson, IP Systems Group                <[email-masked]>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive         71.234W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.497N   Fax +1 781 442 1677

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 12:37:12 -0600 (MDT)

> From: James Carlson <[email-masked]>

> ...
> of the IETF's proper domain. ...

> serve no lasting purpose other than as low-cost advertising.

I agree.

> guess a preemptive "please try something else" document is the only

Searching the mailing archives is very hard.  If its title were
sufficiently enticing in the index, an RFC might help.

> archives.  But perhaps it's worth a shot.)

There are a couple other reasons to be skeptical.  One is that the
idea is obvious, common in many fields (e.g. "speculative execution"
in CPUs), and old.  Would people who don't think of it independently
pay attention to an RFC?

Another reason is whether it would address the motives for the continuing
proposals for fast PPP (re)connection.  I don't want to offend anyone,
but when I'm trying to solve a technical problem, I might post questions
in likely mailing lists, but my questions are unlikely to look like
formal proposals complete with bibliographies.  The substantial effort
of writing an Internet-Draft seems like a good the first step only if
the primary goals including writing an RFC.

An RFC wouldn't replace or amend the "Link Layer Enhancements for
TCP/IP over GSM" in the Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, March 1999 that
may have been the inspiration or instigation for this cycle.

It's also not as if your book is out of print (I hope).

On the third hand, an RFC might save the IESG some time if we
ever get tired of being wet blankets.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: Karl Fox <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 13:37:27 -0400

> archives.  But perhaps it's worth a shot.)

Um, didn't you write a book that describes this?  Couldn't we just 
point people at your book?  (Didn't I just do that yesterday?  :-)

Karl

---

From: James Carlson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 07:09:45 -0400

> point people at your book?  (Didn't I just do that yesterday?  :-)

Yes, another reason to suspect that an RFC wouldn't actually help
much.  But, apparently, the original poster feels he would have looked
to the RFCs first.