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

[Thomas Narten <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ross.

Digging through some old mail, I have this note. This document has
come up to the IESG again for approval as an informational document
and will be discussed Thursday. If there is a problem with publishing
this, we need to be specific about why not.

If this  conflicts with existing WG work and it would be better to
delay publication until after some RFCs are published, that is a
possibility, but we will need to have cause

Can one of you review (or get someone to review) this to see if you
have any real issues?

Thomas

Ross Callon <[e-mail]> writes:


> At 03:39 PM 9/19/2003 -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:

> >Ron, Russ and Rick:
> >
> >Has this document been discussed in the VPN WGs at all? Is there any
> >issue with publishing them as informational? (Joe has asked the RFC
> >editor to publish them as info documents).
> >
> >Thomas

> I have a problem with this being published as an RFC in any
> form, prior to proper working group review. We have in the past
> (in the IETF) had a number of cases of people publishing things
> as informational in order to get around the need for IETF review.
> While I understand why people want to avoid having their work
> reviewed, I don't think that this is something that we should
> encourage. In some cases in fact the document that was 
> published as informational was fine. In some other cases the 
> approach was fine, but the spec was incomplete. In a few
> cases the approach had flaws. 

> Note that I don't actually know whether there is anything that
> should be changed in the document (in a very quick look this
> evening I didn't see any problems with the actual approach). 

> However, I don't think that it is correct to let them subvert the
> process. There are numerous places in the ppvpn working group
> minutes where the document has been referred to, in one case
> as a reason to avoid progressing a different document. How can
> someone say "we have an alternate document, which we are
> not going to discuss, but this other document is the reason that
> the working group shouldn't progress your document"? This 
> doesn't seem like a valid process to me. 

> Thus I think that both the L3VPN working group and the IPSec
> working group should explicitly review the draft before it is 
> published as an RFC in any form. 


> While I am not aware of it being explicitly discussed, it has 
> apparently come up by reference in a number of discussions,
> and appears to have been presented once during a different
> presentation in spite of not appearing on the agenda. 

> This is what I was able to find looking through one minutes 
> (I only looked back as far as IETF 49):


>  From the minutes of IETF 56, during the discussion of 
> draft-declercq-ppvpn-ce-based-sol-00. 

>          Joe Touch: We have running code that is similar to this draft, except 
>          it is push-based, and not pull-based. Also it has not been cited as 
>          reference. 90% is similar to this document, 10 % is different. We have 
>          running code. 


> There was a brief reference in passing in IETF 55 during the 
> discussion of IPsec protected Virtual Links for PPVPNs 
> (Mark Duffy). (again this was along the line of "how can you
> progress a document as a working group document when it
> doesn't conform to this non-working-group document). 


>  From the minutes of IETF 53, March 2002:

>          Joe Touch gave a background for dynamic routing for IPSec transport mode. 
>          Didn't go to standards track to avoid confusion to already existing RFC 2401 
>          (and therefore informational). 

> This seemed to have occurred during or just after a presentation of 
> draft-knight-ppvpn-ipsec-dynroute-00.txt

> The alleged reason for not going standards track doesn't make sense
> to me. 


> During the 51st IETF (London, August 2001), in the discussion 
> of draft-declercq-ppvpn-ce-based-00.txt (renamed as 
> draft-ietf-ppvpn-ce-based-00.txt) there was a mention:

>          Can use IPSec in tunnel mode (ipsec does SA selection, encapsulation 
>          and authentication/encryption) or transport mode (draft-touch-ipsec-..).


> During the 50th IETF, during a discussion of "Use of IPSEC with PPVPN" (Bryan Gleeson, 
> draft-gleeson-IPSec-ppVPN-00.txt):

>          Comment - Joe Touch: This has been addressed in my draft. Read draft-touch-IPSec-VPN-01.txt 
>          (used IP-in-IP encapsulation within IPSec transport mode).

> Ross


_______________________________________________
Vpn-dir mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vpn-dir