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

I went and reread the document this AM. I don't know that I'd call it
a protocol. Looking through some IESG review comments, the one from
Bellovin seems on the mark to me:

> Here are my (belated) notes on draft-touch-ipsec-vpn-06.txt.  They boil 
> down to the impression that Touch et al. have constructed a straw man
> and then designed a mechanism to solve their "problems".

I.e., I think the problem is real, but it's also mostly implementation
and not protocol stuff, and anyone implementing this stuff would run
into this and have to think about what to do. As long as its
technically accurate (I saw no obvious bugs), I don't see much harm in
letting it go. 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?

> The reason is that it defines a protocol which is in the scope of the 
> L3VPN working group, and is in conflict with other work being done by
> the working group, and yet it has not been reviewed by the l3vpn working 
> group nor by any other working group. I think that the message to the 
> authors of the document should be to take their document to the l3vpn 
> working group, and progress it as a working group item.

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.

> The fact that Joe Touch has on multiple occasions used the existence 
> of his draft to try to block progression of other l3vpn (or ppvpn) working 
> group items is pretty solid evidence that even he feels that it overlaps 
> considerably with the scope of the l3vpn working group. 

> >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

> Yes. It does. It specifically overlaps with the CE-based VPN work. 
> See "An Architecture for Provider Provisioned CE-based Virtual Private 
> Networks using IPsec" <draft-ietf-l3vpn-ce-based-01.txt>.

Looks to me that it overlaps part of this document, but not that
much. Specifically, Section 4.2 and 5. Not clear it overlaps much
beyond that.

> 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 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. But if there is
any chance of getting a review before then, that would help.

Thomas

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