Subject: l2tpext meeting synopsis

From: "W. Mark Townsley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 19:02:26 -0400

draft-ietf-l2tpext-ppp-discinfo-00.txt generally accepted as a Good
Thing. 
draft-ietf-l2tpext-l2tp-security-01.txt is fairly stable and should move
forward. Some discussion about ipsra, Xauth, etc. ensued. It was noted
that this draft defines how to protect L2TP with IPsec only. Changes to
IPsec are clearly outside the scope of the WG. 

The following drafts are ready for WG last call: 

draft-ietf-l2tpext-ppp-discinfo-00.txt 
draft-ietf-l2tpext-atmext-03.txt 
draft-ietf-l2tpext-l2tphc-02.txt 
draft-ietf-l2tpext-sessinfo-01.txt 
draft-ietf-l2tp-security-00.txt
draft-ietf-l2tpext-fr-00.txt
draft-ietf-l2tpext-l2tp-atm-01.txt,

The following draft needs resubmission with last call changes before
IETF last call.

draft-ietf-l2tpext-l2tp-mib-00.txt

linkinfo draft will be resubmitted.

Much discussion ensued about L2TP being used to carry PDUs other than
PPP after presentation of draft-nanji-l2tp-eth-00.txt and
draft-mcpherson-l2tp-es-01.txt. It is fairly clear that there are
multiple vendors choosing L2TP to tunnel  protocols other than PPP.
There was discussion about L2TP vs. other tunneling methods,
particularly GRE. Proponents cite L2TP's call setup and well
standardized tunnel/session aggregation as reasons for choosing the
protocol as their solution. 

Consensus in the meeting was that l2tpext will define only the
extensions necessary to L2TP for carrying other PDUs, within the
confines of L2TP's extensibility framework (e.g. new AVPs, but no
changes in the L2TP protocol itself). This will involve standardization
of the AVP(s) that identify the type of PDU to be carried, and new or
existing AVPs that will be used during L2TP call setup or teardown. Any
real time signaling or modifications to the particular protocol being
carried by L2TP are outside the scope of l2tpext WG. If consensus is
concurred on the mailing list, l2tp-bis and the l2tpext charter will be
revised accordingly.