Subject: RE: L2TP charter

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:26:57 -0700

>If you have changes you'd like to see made, how about 
>proposing them on the list. I.e., send text for what 
>you'd like the new charter (and/or milestone) to be 
>so we can discuss.

Comments?  Original is included below.

Thanks!

-danny

*******************************************************************
Proposed Charter, Goals and Milestones (very little difference)

Description of Working Group:

The Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol (L2TP, RFC 2661), as currently defined, is a 
protocol for tunneling PPP (RFC 1661) sessions over various network types.  
The group will provide a forum for discussion and development of extensions
to
L2TP, to include extending L2TP support for tunneling of PDU types in
addition 
to PPP.  Once defined and incorporated into the base standard, the group
will 
work to actively advance the extended L2TP base protocol to Internet
Standard.

The group will:

Define and advance standard MIB for L2TP management.

Produce documents describing how L2TP operates over link types other
than IP (e.g., ATM, Frame Relay, etc.)

Identify and define specific parameters and modes of IPsec in order to
aid interoperability when IPsec is used to secure L2TP traffic.

Define and review the definition of any additional IETF AVPs which are
of interest to the group.

Produce documents describing how L2TP can carry PDUs other than PPP PDUs.

 Goals and Milestones:

   Oct 99       Advance L2TP MIB to Proposed Standard

   Feb 00       Advance L2TP Security to Proposed Standard

   May 00       Advance L2TP over ATM and Frame Relay to Proposed Standard

   NNN 00       Incorporate support for tunneling PDU types other than
                PPP.
   
   NNN 00       Advance L2TP to Draft Standard, 

************************************************************************

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
To: IETF-Announce: ;
Subject: WG ACTION: Layer Two Tunneling Protocol Extensions (l2tpext)
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 12:00:49 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]

A new working group has been formed in the Internet Area of the IETF.
For additional information, contact the Area Directors
or the WG Chair.

Layer Two Tunneling Protocol Extensions (l2tpext)
-------------------------------------------------

 Current Status: Active Working Group

 Chair(s):
     W. Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>

 Internet Area Director(s):
     Thomas Narten  <[email-masked]>
     Erik Nordmark  <[email-masked]>

 Internet Area Advisor:
     Thomas Narten  <[email-masked]>

 Mailing Lists:
     General Discussion:[email-masked]
     To Subscribe:      [email-masked]
     Archive:           http://www.ipsec.org/email/l2tp/

Description of Working Group:

The Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol (L2TP, RFC 2661) is a protocol for
tunneling PPP (RFC 1661) sessions over various network types.  The group
will provide a forum for discussion and development of extensions to
L2TP, and actively advance the L2TP base protocol to Internet Standard.

The group will:

Define and advance standard MIB for L2TP management.

Produce documents describing how L2TP operates over link types other
than IP (e.g., ATM, Frame Relay, etc.)

Identify and define specific parameters and modes of IPsec in order to
aid interoperability when IPsec is used to secure L2TP traffic.

Define and review the definition of any additional IETF AVPs which are
of interest to the group.

 Goals and Milestones:

   Oct 99       Advance L2TP MIB to Proposed Standard

   Feb 00       Advance L2TP Security to Proposed Standard

   May 00       Advance L2TP over ATM and Frame Relay to Proposed Standard

   Sep 00       Advance L2TP to Draft Standard

************************************************************************

---

From: "W. Mark Townsley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 17:09:12 -0400

Thanks, Danny, a couple of comments. Others most certainly welcome.

> Comments?  Original is included below.

We should to investigate whether this would be a material enough change
to L2TP to require reiteration at Proposed Standard. This is, of course,
something I would like to avoid unless absolutely necessary.

> Produce documents describing how L2TP can carry PDUs other than PPP PDUs.

How about:

Investigate applicability of L2TP to carry PDUs other than PPP and
produce documents describing such if deemed useful.