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
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