Subject: Re: PPTP draft

From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:49:23 -0500

All this stuff about PPTP seems misplaced on the IETF list.  It is
primarily a Working Group matter what drafts are allowed on the WG
charter page and/or to use file names showing they are WG items.  Some
WGs only allow that for items which represent some consensus of the WG
while others have a much more open policy.  Whether this draft should
appear on the PPPEXT charter page is a WG local decision.  Saying that
something is a work item of a WG doesn't imply to me that it's
necessarily been produced by the WG.  It could just as easily be
something submitted for the WG to bash on if the WG feels like doing
that.

It really doesn't matter what is allowed as an I-D since they have no
permanent status until published as RFCs.  And our rules clearly
permit proprietary protocols under private control to be published as
Informational RFCs.  However, if there is any hint that its an attempt
to by-pass or interfere with a working group, then it normally gets
referred to the IESG and in practice this seem to happen with most
Information submissions these days.  And it is not uncommon for the
IESG to refer the I-D to the WG in question for the WG opinion of the
draft so even something explicitly submitted by an individual outside
any WG may get WG consideration.

While it may be tempting to attack Microsoft and I don't know what was
intended here, given all the above, it would not be irrational to
submit an I-D to the relevant WG if it had an open I-D policy even if
it was intended that the I-D be published as an Informational RFC
documenting a propriety protocol.

Thanks,
Donald