emv@OX.COM (Edward Vielmetti) (04/19/91)
[This will be familiar to you if you have read news.groups or comp.dcom.lans recently. I am not posting it from news because the gateway eats my address.] I am gathering opinions and interest for a new Usenet newsgroup, to be called 'comp.protocols.ppp'. It will discuss the Internet "Point to Point Protocol", implementations, protocol details, interoperability reports, software, hardware, etc. Currently there is a fair amount of discussion of PPP on Usenet; though it's scattered around in a number of groups, I was able to count on the order of 50+ relevant articles in a span of two weeks. Unfortunatly these articles were in more than a dozen different groups, and there's no single one group where the discussion would ordinarily gravitate. This group would cover the following subject: - the Point to Point Protocol - IETF efforts at standardizing and extending the protocol - free and commercial software implementations - interoperability reports - other protocols occupying similar ecological niches, including SLIP, compressed SLIP, and various HDLC things (but not other async protocols like Kermit or xmodem) - hardware details of async and sync communications, whenever that ends up being relevant. The usual Usenet ritual involves a "request for discussion", a period of time for hair-tearing and gnashing of teeth to determine whether the name is suitable, and then a "call for votes". The discussion thus far has centered on whether the name is too narrow and shouldn't be widened to encompass SLIP; I suspect that the actual discussion in a "ppp" group will include slip discussion for a while if only because of the installed base. Comments can go to me or to the list; discussion regarding the name is traditionally the playpen of news.groups. Substantive discussion of PPP would be best done in the two existing usenet groups that get most of the traffic (comp.dcom.lans and comp.dcom.modems) or on the IETF PPP mailing list (mail to ietf-ppp-request@ucdavis.edu to join). -- 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
sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) (04/21/91)
In article <9104190537.AA00924> brian@napa.telebit.COM writes: >I propose comp.protocols.serial-internetworking. The name is more in >line with the likely discussion areas including slip, ppp, and using >all this stuff to build or extend networks. How about: comp.protocols.a-gratuitously-long-name-that-may-or-may-not-adequately-describe-the-group-to-discuss-ppp-and-related-protocols Personally I think that comp.protocols.ppp is succinct and to the point. As Ed pointed out there is currently a lot of discussion in a wide range of groups on ppp. We need to collect it together. If you want to suggest a different group to discuss building internets or WANS or whatever go to it. I suggest it should be seperate from comp.protocols.ppp. -- Stuart Lynne Computer Signal Corporation, Canada ...!van-bc!sl 604-937-7785 604-937-7718(fax) sl@wimsey.bc.ca
bsimpson@VELA.ACS.OAKLAND.EDU (Bill Simpson) (04/28/91)
Too complicated. What about comp.protocols.serial, and gateway to/from
the ietf-ppp list?
Bill_Simpson@um.cc.umich.edu
bsimpson@vela.acs.oakland.edubrian@NAPA.TELEBIT.COM (Brian Lloyd) (04/28/91)
I am not sure that ietf-ppp should go away. There needs to be a place where implementors can go to talk where the S/N ratio remains high. Brian