Point-to-point Protocol Work Group Chairpersons: Russ Hobby/UC Davis and Drew Perkins/CMU CURRENT MEETING REPORT Reported by Russ Hobby ATTENDEES 1. Cohen, Danny/cohen@isi.edu 2. Coltun, Rob/rcoltun@trantor.umd.edu 3. Deboo, Farokh/fjd@bridge2.esd.3com.com 4. Edwards, David/dle@cisco.com 5. Fair, Erik/fair@apple.com 6. Farinacci, Dino/dino@bridge2.3com.com 7. Fox, Craig/foxcj@nsco.network.com 8. Gross, Phill/pgross@nri.reston.va.us 9. Hobby, Russ/rdhobby@ucdavis.edu 10. Hollingsworth, Greg/gregh@gateway.mitre.org 11. Jolitz, William/william@ernie.berkeley.edu 12. Kaufman, Dave/dek@proteon.com 13. Khanna, Raman/khanna@jessica.stanford.edu 14. Kullberg, Alan/akullberg@bbn.com 15. LoVerso, John R./loverso@xylogics.com 16. Lottor, Mark/mkl@sri-nic.arpa 17. Maas, Andy/maas@jessica.stanford.edu 18. Mamakos, Louis A./louie@trantor.umd.edu 19. McKenney, Paul E./mckenney@sri.com 20. Melohn, Bill/melohn@sun.com 21. Merritt, Don/don@brl.mil 22. Natalie, Ron/ron@rutgers.edu 23. Opalka, Zbigniew/zopalka@bbn.com 24. Perkins, Drew /ddp@andrew.cmu.edu 25. Petry, Mike/petry@trantor.umd.edu 26. Satz, Greg/satz@cisco.com 27. St. Johns, Mike/stjohns@beast.ddn.mil 28. Tsai, Howard/hst@mtuxo.att.com 29. Waldfogel, Asher/wellflt!awaldfog MINUTES The PPP WG met on July 24, 25 and 26 at the IETF meeting at Stanford. Review of the latest draft of the specifications required discussion on the following areas: 1. An "Executive Summary" needs to be written for the beginning. 2. The PPP document should have less details of the HDLC protocol and have references to the appropriate documents on HDLC. The PPP document should include text of specifications that are unique to the PPP protocol application of HDLC. 3. All discussion of LAPB will be dropped from the document. The Enable LAPB option will also be removed. 4. There was again discussion of what protocol numbers to use, the ethernet numbers or new numbers. It was decided to let Jon Postel make the final decision with arguments presented for each case. 5. There was clarification of the wording in steps 3 and 4 of the description of the LCP sequence. 6. The Configure Request Request packet and the Character Generator Request/Reply packets were determined to be unnecessary and would be dropped. 7. A better description of Async Character Mapping is needed and how it relates to sync lines. Many other minor editing changes were suggested and will be incorporated in the next draft. The state diagram of the configuration exchange was examined in detail and the final form will be written up. There was a lengthy discussion on the best method for doing keepalives. The final conclusion was that a keep-alive request would be sent to the remote end containing the number of packets sent. The remote end would send a keep-alive reply containing the difference in the number of packets sent and the number of packets received. Policy on when to take the line down could be determined at each end independently based on the information provided by the keep-alive packets. A more detailed description of the mechanism will be written. There was discussion on what is the minimal implementation of PPP. The conclusion was: the minimum would be LCP configuration exchange with no options included. This would be followed by an IP configuration exchange with no options. The line would then be ready for IP traffic. Areas in need of further work are: o Stronger Authentication Protocols o Definition of encryption methods o Stronger IP address exchange methods o Definition of the use of other high level protocols The group plans to have a document with the agreed specifications finalized in two weeks followed with a video conference for verification of the text.