Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal

Acee Lindem <acee@REDBACK.COM> Tue, 29 October 2002 18:53 UTC

Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com (cherry.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.0.109]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19298 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 13:53:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from walnut (209.119.0.61) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <9.0079994C@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 13:55:50 -0500
Received: from DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM by DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 356004 for OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 13:55:50 -0500
Received: from 155.53.12.9 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0f) with TCP; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 13:55:50 -0400
Received: from redback.com (login005.redback.com [155.53.12.60]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE46A3B7FD6 for <OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:55:48 -0800 (PST)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020508 Netscape6/6.2.3
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <E7E13AAF2F3ED41197C100508BD6A328791918@india_exch.hyderabad.mindspeed.com> <3DBECD6F.D54F8B48@nokia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <3DBED917.7090800@redback.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 13:53:11 -0500
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM>
From: Acee Lindem <acee@REDBACK.COM>
Subject: Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal
To: OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM
Precedence: list
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Mukesh Gupta wrote:

>>Regarding the last item in the charter "IPSec usage with OSPFv3", I remember
>>one of the comments on the list was that the mechanism could be generalized
>>for other protocols like RIPng etc, would we pursue this item on this WG?
>>
>
> There are parts of the proposed draft that are generic and could be used for
> RIPng as well. But there are some specific things like virtual links that are
> just for OSPFv3. As this already involves more than one group (IPsec and OSPF),
> I would suggest keeping it in OSPF WG so that we can focus on it and finish it
> on time.
>
> I think some vendors have already implemented the OSPFv3 security using IPsec
> and we in Nokia are almost done with it too. It would be good if we could
> finalize things sooner.


Rohit and I discussed this and we agree that there are enough differences in
the application of IPSec to OSPFv3 to keep the documents separate. Additionally,
as Mukesh points out, it will be much easier to get the progress the draft
through a single WG.

Thanks,
Acee


>
> regards
> Mukesh
> --
> ******************************************************************
> Life is the biggest bargain. We get it for nothing.
> ******************************************************************
> Mukesh Gupta
> Phone: (650) 625-2264
> Cell : (650) 868-9111
> http://www.iprg.nokia.com/~mgupta
> ******************************************************************
>
>


--
Acee