Re: Reigning in "bad" extensions to PPP

> I gather from your post that you agree that the Route-Add option proposal is
> a bad idea?

That would be an accurate reflection of my personal opinion.

> If so, I will inform the appropriate parties that the pppext WG
> doesn't endorse such a proposal.

That would not be a logical next step from the previous statement. I
don't speak for the WG.

> What is the pppext WG stance with regard to IPCP option 144?  I have
> yet to find an RFC or a draft describing such an option.  Yet, I'm
> being asked (actually forced) to implement this option in order to
> be considered for operation in certain broadband networks.

I would assume that since there is no IETF-blessed RFC, this WG has
chosen not to do something along the lines of option 144. Indeed, my
recollection is that this WG has a long tradition of not supporting
extensions to PPP that are not really PPP-specific. E.g., quoting from
the PPPEXT charter:

> The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP, RFC 1661) is a mature protocol with a
> large number of subprotocols, encapsulations and other extensions. The 
> group will actively advance PPP's most useful extensions to full 
> standard, while defending against further enhancements of questionable 
> value.

Thomas