Subject: Draft charter for L3VPN: CE-based IPsec

From: "Paul Knight" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 18:09:34 -0400

Hi Alex,

There are a few areas related to CE-based IPsec VPNs which we may want to
address in the new charter.

The current CE-based drafts (draft-ietf-ppvpn-ce-based-03.txt and
draft-declercq-ppvpn-ce-based-sol-00.txt) really focus just on the
provider-provisioned model.  Do we want to explicitly limit the scope of the
WG to this model?  I don't think so.

I would personally like to leave the door open for the WG to work on the
user-provisioned L3VPN (IPsec and possibly SSL/TLS) model as well.  I think
the new charter should note the distinction and address the scope of work
for each model:

- For the user-provisioned IPsec VPN model, there is a need for work in the
areas of provisioning, routing, resilience, topology, discovery, and
possibly QOS mechanisms.  These areas will fit well in the L3VPN WG, and are
not being addressed in the IPSEC WG.

- These same areas and others need to be addressed in the
provider-provisioned CE-based IPsec VPN space, but will likely result in
different recommendations and focus.

As a final point, L3VPN remote access (joining the VPN from an individual
host at an arbitrary IP address) may deserve a mention in the charter.  I
don't think we should automatically exclude it.

Regards,
Paul

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:59:22 -0700

Paul,

  I agree that there is interest in the area of user-provisioned VPNs
  and remote access.

  However, we can't put everything in the charter now. The latest rev
  of the charter I have now (will post soon) already has more than 15
  documents and about a year worth of just WG Last Calls. I think this
  is more than enough. Let's deal with what we have on the plate
  already.

  If active work is going on and people have a sense of urgency in the
  user-provisioned VPN space, we may need to think about a separate
  WG.

-- 
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin/