Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review ofdraft-ietf-mip4-vpn-problem-solution-04.txt
"Eric Gray" <eric.gray@ericsson.com> Mon, 03 March 2008 20:56 UTC
Return-Path: <gen-art-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-gen-art-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-gen-art-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8121F28C1E0; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:56:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.588
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.151, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rwnZKXRrSSMv; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:56:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F09328C181; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:56:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FD5B28C17A for <gen-art@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:56:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U-1ma7bdWmBi for <gen-art@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:56:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imr1.ericy.com (imr1.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16E9F28C174 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:56:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw751.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.51]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m23KtsBj004040; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 14:55:54 -0600
Received: from eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se ([138.85.77.21]) by eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 3 Mar 2008 14:55:54 -0600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:55:52 -0600
Message-ID: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF029039E2@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <47CC59E6.6000305@ericsson.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review ofdraft-ietf-mip4-vpn-problem-solution-04.txt
Thread-Index: Ach9aiPMHqAv27PjQwCMkRKVIr8WCQAA5FZw
References: <47CC59E6.6000305@ericsson.com>
From: Eric Gray <eric.gray@ericsson.com>
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, sami.vaarala@iki.fi, espen@birdstep.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Mar 2008 20:55:54.0034 (UTC) FILETIME=[F8945920:01C87D70]
Cc: mip4-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Henrik Levkowetz <henrik.levkowetz@ericsson.com>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review ofdraft-ietf-mip4-vpn-problem-solution-04.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org
Suresh, et al, I am not sure it is appropriate to treat the issue of this being possibly published as a BCP as a "process nit". There are a lot of required behaviors and no discussion to lead one to conclude that these are already existing behaviors in any part of the "problem space." In fact, what discussion there is includes statements like: "This document outlines the proposed solution for IPv4." That doesn't sound like an endorsement of an existing approach one should expect from a BCP. The entire Abstract says only this: "This document outlines a solution for the Mobile IPv4 and IPsec coexistence problem for enterprise users. The solution consists of an applicability statement for using Mobile IPv4 and IPsec for session mobility in corporate remote access scenarios, and a required mechanism for detecting the trusted internal network securely." The introduction includes a bullet requirement of the "solution specified in this document" that says "must minimize changes to existing firewall/VPN/DMZ deployments" - clearly implying that some significant part of the deployed equipment may require changes (further begging a question about where and when the "current practices" should be discovered). In fact, the introduction explicitly states - "Unfortunately the current Mobile IPv4 and IPsec standards alone do not provide such a service" - where the service referred to is (presumably) the target solution proposed by this document. As I understand it, the use of "Best Current Practices" is intended to document the best of (possibly several) existing solutions for use in the network. Using a BCP to propose a new set of "practices" - particularly where those practices involve required behaviors in existing devices that may or may not be present, and without any obvious mention of at least considering that as an issue - (at worst) looks effectively like an "end-run" effort to avoid standards track processes, or (at best) severely optimistic interpretation of the phrase "current practice". Have BCPs become the new standard's track? -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson > -----Original Message----- > From: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:gen-art-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Krishnan > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 3:05 PM > To: General Area Review Team; sami.vaarala@iki.fi; espen@birdstep.com > Cc: mip4-chairs@tools.ietf.org; Henrik Levkowetz; Jari Arkko > Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review > ofdraft-ietf-mip4-vpn-problem-solution-04.txt > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for > draft-ietf-mip4-vpn-problem-solution-04.txt > > For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>. > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > Summary: Ready for publication. All my technical comments on > the earlier > version of this draft have been addressed. > > Process nit > =========== > I am still concerned about the draft being a BCP rather than > a Standards > track document since it requires changes to node implementations and > requires behavioral changes on some nodes. > > Cheers > Suresh > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mip4-vpn-p… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review ofdraft-ietf-mip4-vp… Eric Gray