Re: draft-touch-ipsec-vpn-05.txt

[Ross Callon <[e-mail]>]

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