Reigning in "bad" extensions to PPP

> I believe that "putting our collective feet down" would require a change
> in the IANA allocations policy for IPCP code points. Today this is "first
> come first served", no?

Bernard is right, unfortunately.

IMO, a document for PPP IANA Considerations is needed. At a minimum,
an IANA considerations document would define when and under what
conditions IANA should allocate code points. Right now, there are some
nume spaces where anyone can get a code point just by asking. It would
be quite reasonable for the WG to say "for standards track only" for
some of the number spaces, for example. For a recent example of how to
do this, see draft-aboba-radius-iana-07.txt, which the IESG approved
recently.

If you want to reign in bad uses of PPP, there are ways of documenting
that too, but it's a bit more work. One  possible example is:

     RFC 3427 "Change Process for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)"

That document contains the steps that must be followed for extending
SIP. Having such documents makes it a lot easier for the IESG to say
"no" to bad requests, since we would be speaking for the PPP
community.

Thomas