[Fwd: I-D Action: draft-boucadair-pppext-portrange-option-05.txt]

Another update of this draft.  Among the changes, the draft now says
that it intends "Informational" rather than "Experimental" status, and
it has switched to use vendor-specific options rather than a distinct
IPCP Option number.

While I continue to believe that this is not the right layer at which to
do this negotiation, and thus it's still an architectural error, the
move to a vendor option alleviates many of my concerns.

I think we're just down to the use of the IETF as a vanity press.
Perhaps if it must go forward, we can agree on some disclaimer text
explaining that it's not the product of this working group and that
there are serious reservations concerning its use.

--

-- 
James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W         <carlsonj <at> workingcode.com>

From: Another update of this draft. Among the changes, the draft now says that it intends "Informational" rather than "Experimental" status, and it has switched to use vendor-specific options rather than a distinct IPCP Option number. While I continue to believe that this is not the right layer at which to do this negotiation, and thus it's still an architectural error, the move to a vendor option alleviates many of my concerns. (Continue reading)