Subject: Re: PPTP draft

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 15:19:11 -0700 (MST)

] From: Steve Coya <[email-masked]>

]  ...
] An Internet-Draft is either a work item of an IETF WG, or an individual
] submission. "Work item" means the document is a product of, or under the
] auspices of, an IETF Working Group.
] 
] The only significant impact of being a WG work item is that the document
] appears on the Working Group's Web page.

That may be the only significant effect as far as the IESG is concerned,
but there are potentially large effects (read Big-$$$) from obtaining the
IETF's imprimatur.  People don't jump through the RFC Editor's hoops only
for the egogratification of getting into the RFC index.

 .................

> From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>

> ...
> > >Is that an accurate label?  PPTP is not a "work item" of the working group
> > >is it?  
>
> I suppose that that depends upon how you define "work item".  The draft is
> the work of WG members, and it was submitted for review by the WG.
>
> > >Isn't PPTP Microsoft's originally and still essentially proprietary
> > >protocol, competing with the PPP tunneling protocol, L2TP, which is in
> > >fact a "work item" of the working group?
>
> PPTP is not "Microsoft's" protocol; it was the product of an industry
> group including Ascend and USR, among others.  The group included
> Microsoft.  L2TP is in large part derived from PPTP and L2F (a proprietary
> cisco protocol).  
> ...

That is at best specious.  The origins of L2TP do not imply L2F or PPTP
are IETF standards.  All of us have lives and business interests outside
the IETF, but our participation in the IETF does not make all documents
we write IETF work items.  A few participants cannot decide among
themselves what protocols the IETF PPP working group will produce or
review.  Such decisions require working group concensus.  The current
concensus is that the L2TP is the IETF PPP tunneling protocol, not
Microsoft's PPTP.

As for PPTP not being Microsoft's protocol--please do not insult our
intelligence.  We know that not all partners in industry groups have equal
votes, and we know why some vendors might care to talk to Microsoft about
PPTP.  In any case, what any industry group does is irrelevant here, even
if old timers had not seen countless consortia come and go.

Because of Glen Zorn's statement, it's clear that what I thought was merely
nitpicking prompted by my silly paranoia is what is actually happening.
The text at the start of the PPTP document is intended to give the
impression that Microsoft's PPTP protocol is endorsed by the IETF in
parallel with L2TP.  I don't think any chicanery was involved, but only
that the PPTP participants misled themselves, and hoped to communicate
their misunderstanding to the readers of their document.

I formally ask that the PPP Working Group Chairman direct the RFC Editor
to not publish another version of the PPTP document until and unless the
initial section is changed to make clear that the PPTP protocol and
document are not IETF efforts.  I think moving the last paragraph to the
start would be sufficient, but others might be more paranoid, particularly
when they read the second paragraph of the draft.  I trust that in any
case, the next announcement will not have the false claim that the document
is a "work item" of the IETF PPP Working Group.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]