Subject: Re: PPTP draft

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:27:57 -0700 (MST)

> From: Karl Fox <[email-masked]>

> >    A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> >    directories.  This draft is a work item of the Point-to-Point
> >    Protocol Extensions Working Grou p of the IETF

> You are correct; PPTP is not a work item of the PPPEXT working group.

Thanks.

That's the second time in the last couple of weeks I've encountered a
draft that appeared to be an officially sponsored and approved IETF
document, but was not.  I had no clue about the real status of the other
example, until the author enlightened me.  It contained no clue about its
intended eventual status, the working group with which it ies associated,
or anything useful than ISOC copyright.

It would be really swell if all announcements would accurately state the
status of the document.  It would also be good the RFC editor would refuse
to announce documents until there their text makes clear their source and
status.  The PPTP draft does include the familar "does not specify an
Internet standard" disclaimer, but only after saying "This document is an
Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section
10 of RFC2026."  Wannabe that most readers will read the first three
paragraphs, not read RFC 2026, miss the "not a standard" disclaimer, and
conclude that PPTP is an official IETF standard?  Shouldn't the disclaimer
be first, since it is most important and relevant?

As long as the IETF is being a free vanity publisher for the world, it
wouldn't hurt if the Editor imposed a few minimal guidelines to slow
the dilution of the IETF brand or trademark.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]