[comp.dcom.lans] PPP: discussion of new group "comp.protocols.ppp"

emv@ox.com (Ed Vielmetti) (04/15/91)

whereas,

in the past two weeks there has been discussion of the point to point
protocol in roughly 47 articles;

this discussion has been scattered in amongst 27 different and sundry
newsgroups;

there is no currently existing newsgroup which has in its charter
a focus on serial communications for internet protocols; 

it is difficult to follow progress in implementations,
interoperability, and product availability when the discussion is all
over the net; further that very few people are willing to read every
newsgroup just to find this out; that I am growing weary of fishing
through misspellings of "oppportunity" and random uuencoded garbage
and specmark results for "fpppp" to try to find them;

hereby be it resolved:

that comp.dcom.modems and comp.dcom.lans be considered the newsgroups
of choice for discussion of the Point to Point Protocol (PPP);  that
articles discussing this protocol be prominently marked
	Subject: PPP: ........
in the headers;

that a registry of all PPP implementations, both synchronous and
asynchronous, free and commercial, past, present and future, be
collected and propogated throughout the community; that the faults of
these implementations be damned, their qualities be praised, and their
price be haggled over;

that vendors considering proprietary serial protocols be hit upside
the head with a wet fish and informed of the error of their ways;

that the efforts of PPP standardization being done in the internet
engineering task force (ietf) community be made widely known and sped
upon their way;

that serious consideration be made to starting an entire newsgroup
devoted to PPP, with an appropriate name; further that all relevant
non-usenet mailing lists be identified and informed of the same
consideration; 

that this be considered a call for discussion for this group, with a
name "comp.protocols.ppp", and be accompanied by the traditional
usenet weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth to foretell its utility;

that aforementioned weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth
transpire in news.groups as tradition decrees.

In witness thereof,

-- 
 Msen	Edward Vielmetti
/|---	moderator, comp.archives
	emv@msen.com

"With all of the attention and publicity focused on gigabit networks,
not much notice has been given to small and largely unfunded research
efforts which are studying innovative approaches for dealing with
technical issues within the constraints of economic science."  
							RFC 1216

mjo@ttardis.UUCP (Mike O'Connor) (04/16/91)

In article <EMV.91Apr15010240@crane.aa.ox.com>, emv@ox.com (Ed Vielmetti) writes:
>
>hereby be it resolved:
>
>that comp.dcom.modems and comp.dcom.lans be considered the newsgroups
>of choice for discussion of the Point to Point Protocol (PPP);  that
>articles discussing this protocol be prominently marked
>	Subject: PPP: ........
>in the headers;
>

Good luck enforcing that...  you'll need it.

A strictly MichNet question -- when will SLFP be phased out in favor of
PPP?


Internet:		mjo%ttardis@uunet.uu.net	
UUCP ("domain"):	mjo@ttardis.UUCP
UUCP (bang):		...!uunet!sharkey!cfctech!ttardis!mjo

jessea@homecare.uucp (Jesse W. Asher) (04/16/91)

In article <EMV.91Apr15010240@crane.aa.ox.com>, emv@ox.com (Ed Vielmetti) wrote the following:
>in the past two weeks there has been discussion of the point to point
>protocol in roughly 47 articles;
>
>this discussion has been scattered in amongst 27 different and sundry
>newsgroups;
>
>there is no currently existing newsgroup which has in its charter
>a focus on serial communications for internet protocols; 

I think you've hit the nail on the head with this last statement but
your name does not reflect it.  There is a lot of discussion of _serial_
communications including slip, cslip, and ppp.  What is needed is a
group for discussion about serial related protocols and not just ppp.
ppp may be much better and hopefully will be what is used in the future,
but many people are already using slip and will probably continue to do
so.  Perhaps something like comp.protocols.serial-ip, or perhaps
comp.protocols.serial?  I would prefer _not_ to see something like
comp.protocols.tcp-ip.serial.  Definitely too long.  Comments?

jim@dorm.rutgers.edu (Jim Martin) (04/17/91)

jessea@homecare.uucp (Jesse W. Asher) writes:
>I think you've hit the nail on the head with this last statement but
>your name does not reflect it.  There is a lot of discussion of _serial_
>communications including slip, cslip, and ppp.  What is needed is a
>group for discussion about serial related protocols and not just ppp.
>ppp may be much better and hopefully will be what is used in the future,
>but many people are already using slip and will probably continue to do
>so.  Perhaps something like comp.protocols.serial-ip, or perhaps
>comp.protocols.serial?  I would prefer _not_ to see something like
>comp.protocols.tcp-ip.serial.  Definitely too long.  Comments?

	I agree wholeheartedly with this, but for a slightly different
reason. With the advent of PPP, there is the ability to carry non-ip
protocols, therefore naming the group comp.protocols.tcp-ip.serial
would be incorrect. Has it been decided when the voting will begin on
this?

						Jim
-- 
	Jim Martin			Internet: jim@dorm.rutgers.edu
	Dormitory Networking Project	UUCP: {backbone}!rutgers!jim
	Rutgers University		Phone: (908) 932-3719