Re: [IPsec] Comments on proposed draft-ietf-ipsecme-ad-vpn-problem-02

Brian,
	Just want to confirm that Vishwas solution closes this issue.  Agreed?

Thanks,
Lou

On 12/14/2012 4:56 PM, Brian Weis wrote:
> Hi Lou,
> 
> On Dec 14, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote:
> 
>> Brian,
>> 	Opps, should have replied to this message (and not the prior).
>>
>> My previous mail basically said the new requirement is placed on the
>> ADVPN solution, not a particular implementation.  I think it's important
>> to ensure that the overall solution provides for Requirement 14, and I'm
>> not sure how this can be done without a requirement.
> 
> If I understand correctly, these requirements are intending to be relevant to "ADVPN solutions" that don't include network infrastructure. It doesn't make sense to me to make a "ADVPN solution" implemented on PCs and comprised exclusively of PCs subject to this as a general requirement.
> 
> All other MUST requirements in Section 4 seem to apply equally to all use cases.
> 
>>
>> See below for additional specific responses.
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>> Lou, would something like the following text in Section 2.2 be a
>>> satisfactory replacement for Requirement 14?
>>>
>>>    There is also the case when L3VPNs operate over IPsec Tunnels, 
>>>    for example Provider Edge (PE) based VPN's. An AD VPN must
>>>    support L3VPN as an application protected by the IPsec
>>>    Tunnels.
>>
>> it he must was a MUST, sure.
> 
> I'd happily support a MUST here. There aren't any other MUSTs outside of Section 4, but I don't know why.
> 
> Thanks,
> Brian
> 
>>
>> Lou
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
> 
> 
> 
>