Re: draft-touch-ipsec-vpn-06.txt

At 01:38 PM 1/21/2004 -0500, Thomas Narten wrote:
>I went and reread the document this AM. I don't know that I'd call it
>a protocol. 

It sort of depends what you mean by "protocol". I didn't see it as
defining a new packet header. However, it does define how two different
devices operate to talk to each other. It does imply implementation 
needed by boxes wanting to communicate, and implies the way that 
various other existing headers would be used. 

>...But I'm fine with getting the WG to look and decide if
>it has issues with it. Want to go ahead and do that?

Okay. I will put together a message for the l3vpn working group. 

>Not sure  its really defining a protocol. More like advocating that
>one should  use IPinIP tunneling (with IPSec as part of that) so that
>virtual links look like real interfaces.

It is also proposing very specific ways to do this (which conflict 
with other work). 

> > I will try to get people to review this. I doubt that other reviewers can 
> > get this done by Thursday (but I will ask tonight).
>
>More time is OK, but we'll need closure within two weeks.

I got one review already (less than 24 hours!). I will forward the 
pertinent parts. 

> > I would prefer to send it to the l3vpn working group and ask for the 
> > group as a whole to review it (though it would also be a good idea to 
> > ask specific people in parallel).
>
>Please do so. I will delay approval (if that is what the IESG decides
>is appropriate) until at least the following telechat. 

Will do.

By the way, who is on "vpn-dir"? Does this include anyone who is not 
on the l3vpn mailing list, and who would want to see the discussion (if
any) over this document?

thanks, Ross

_______________________________________________
Vpn-dir mailing list
Vpn-dir@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vpn-dir