[L2tpext] [Fwd: [PWE3] CEP IESG comments]
Carlos Pignataro <cpignata@cisco.com> Mon, 13 November 2006 02:29 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GjRZh-0002cb-K3; Sun, 12 Nov 2006 21:29:29 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GjRZg-0002cA-5K for l2tpext@ietf.org; Sun, 12 Nov 2006 21:29:28 -0500
Received: from hen.cisco.com ([64.102.19.198] helo=av-tac-rtp.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GjRZe-0005A0-T1 for l2tpext@ietf.org; Sun, 12 Nov 2006 21:29:28 -0500
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from rooster.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id kAD2TQi11117 for <l2tpext@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Nov 2006 21:29:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [10.82.242.136] (rtp-vpn2-648.cisco.com [10.82.242.136]) by rooster.cisco.com (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id kAD2TOS24493 for <l2tpext@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Nov 2006 21:29:24 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4557D884.6040804@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 21:29:24 -0500
From: Carlos Pignataro <cpignata@cisco.com>
Organization: cisco Systems, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.8) Gecko/20061025 Thunderbird/1.5.0.8 Mnenhy/0.7.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: l2tpext mailing list <l2tpext@ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.1.1
X-Face: *3w8NvnQ|kS~V{&{U}$?G9U9EJQ8p9)O[1[1F'1i>XIc$5FR!hdAIf5}'Xu-3`^Z']h0J* ccB'fl/XJYR[+,Z+jj`4%06nd'y9[ln&ScJT5S+O18e^
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: a87a9cdae4ac5d3fbeee75cd0026d632
Subject: [L2tpext] [Fwd: [PWE3] CEP IESG comments]
X-BeenThere: l2tpext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Layer Two Tunneling Protocol Extensions <l2tpext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext>, <mailto:l2tpext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/l2tpext>
List-Post: <mailto:l2tpext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2tpext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext>, <mailto:l2tpext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2tpext-bounces@ietf.org
Group, FYI. Thanks, --Carlos. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [PWE3] CEP IESG comments Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 19:21:34 +0200 From: Ron Cohen <ronc@resolutenetworks.com> To: <pwe3@ietf.org> Hi, Please find below resolutions to several comments raised during the IESG review of the SONET PW draft (draft-ietf-pwe3-sonet-13.txt). Please let us know of any objections or comments to these resolutions. The modifications are: 1. Limiting the draft scope to transport of CEP over MPLS and L2TP. Transport over UDP/IP will be left out of scope of this draft. One comment concerned the security mechanims needed to support UDP/IP. To address this we need to include a detailed description of the use of IPsec, including the mechanisms needed to exchange keys. As far as the authors have been able to determine, there is no planned use of CEP over UDP/IP. The authors therefore recommend limiting the draft scope to transport of CEP over MPLS and L2TP. Transport over UDP/IP will be left out of scope of this draft and the associated sections removed from the text. 2. Clarification on the use of RTP for CEP. Clarifications include - Add the following sentence: Although CEP MAY employ an RTP header when explicit transfer of timing information is required, this is purely formal reuse of the header format. RTP mechanisms, such as header extensions, CSRC list, padding, RTCP, RTP header compression, SRTP, etc. are not applicable to pseudowires. - Change Figure 1 to indicate RTP header location between CEP header and SONET fragement. This is consistent with L2TP and MPLS PSN encapsulation of other TDM drafts. +-----------------------------------+ | PSN and Multiplexing Layer | | Headers | +-----------------------------------+ | CEP Header | +-----------------------------------+ | RTP Header | | (RFC3550) | +-----------------------------------+ | | | | | SONET/SDH | | Fragment | | | | | +-----------------------------------+ Figure 1: Basic CEP Packet 3. Clarifications on security section that include adding the following sentences: Although CEP MAY employ an RTP header when explicit transfer of timing information is required, SRTP [RFC3711] mechanisms are not a substitute for PW layer security. CEP transport over L2TPv3 is subject to the security considerations discussed in section 4.1.3 of [LT2Pv3]. In particular, CEP over L2TP may be secured using IPsec as described in [RFC3193]. If this approach is acceptable to the working group we will forward the changes to the RFC editor. Best Ron (on behalf of CEP Authors) Ron Cohen Resolute Networks _______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 -- --Carlos Pignataro. Escalation RTP - cisco Systems _______________________________________________ L2tpext mailing list L2tpext@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext
- [L2tpext] RE: [PWE3] CEP IESG comments Ron Cohen
- [L2tpext] [Fwd: [PWE3] CEP IESG comments] Carlos Pignataro
- [L2tpext] Re: [PWE3] CEP IESG comments Stewart Bryant
- [L2tpext] Re: [PWE3] CEP IESG comments Andrew G. Malis