On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 03:37:46PM +0200, Alper Yegin wrote: > Are the chairs really asking the WG to adopt this I-D? The plan was to see > the designated team's analysis on this I-D first, before anything moves > forward. If you look at the draft, it has changed significantly; o It is now Informational. o It is tied to Bernie's "Vendor Messages", and documents in pretty fine detail their use of those messages to implement "DHCPEAP". It requires no IANA assignment, so they do not need these drafts to progress to implement it. I don't know if this is considered bad form at the IETF, but I think we need to seriously (re)consider this compromise; a show of good faith on DSL Forum's behalf to document their (ab)uses. (I would like to note briefly that I see no evidence the draft has made any attempt to address the technical concerns I raised last year, and so I still must say this draft "documents a bad idea in fine detail.") -- David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again." Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins
Attachment:
pgpze2Rntlwq3.pgp
Description: PGP signature