Subject: RE: draft-touch-ipsec-vpn-06.txt

From: "Claudio Lordello" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 19:33:35 -0500

My 2 cents:

1) Using ipsec tunnels for provisioning private networks running dynamic protocols over a public infrastructure works just fine and existing equipment, my company's included, has had that functionality for years, without any of the issues mentioned in the draft. While it is true that some other implementations may have limitations with running dynamic routing over IPsec tunnels, that's more an implementation issue than one intrinsic to the IPsec protocol.

2) Some versions of this draft have been submitted to the ipsec WG in the past, and it did not progress in that WG. I am not sure I understand the motivation for publishing this document. Perhaps someone could clarify.

Claudio.

>Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 15:53:02 -0500
>To: [email-masked]
>From: Ross Callon <[email-masked]>
>Subject: draft-touch-ipsec-vpn-06.txt
>Cc: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
>
>We have been notified that the IESG is considering publication 
>of an individual contribution entitled: 
>         Use of IPsec Transport Mode for Dynamic Routing
>         draft-touch-ipsec-vpn-06.txt
>         http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-touch-ipsec-vpn-06.txt
>
>This document is related to use of IPsec for support of VPNs. From 
>the abstract of the document, it states in part:
>
>         This document addresses the use of IPsec to secure the links 
>         of a virtual (private) network (VN/VPN)...
>
>Given that the document overlaps with our work, the issue has come
>up regarding whether the document should be published without any
>working group consideration, or whether the author should be requested
>to bring the work to the l3vpn working group for consideration. 
>
>This leads to two questions:
>
>  - Does the l3vpn working group feel that this document should be 
>reviewed by a public working group, such as the l3vpn working group, 
>prior to publication?
>
>  - Do we have any technical comments on the document?
>
>Comments to the list, please.
>
>Thanks, Ross

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:49:27 -0800

Claudio Lordello wrote:

> My 2 cents:
> 
> 1) Using ipsec tunnels for provisioning private networks running
> dynamic protocols over a public infrastructure works just fine and
> existing equipment, my company's included, has had that functionality
> for years, without any of the issues mentioned in the draft. While it is
> true that some other implementations may have limitations with running
> dynamic routing over IPsec tunnels, that's more an implementation issue
> than one intrinsic to the IPsec protocol.

The issue is exactly that the result is implementation specific, and 
should not be.

> 2) Some versions of this draft have been submitted to the ipsec WG in
> the past, and it did not progress in that WG. I am not sure I
> understand the motivation for publishing this document. Perhaps
> someone could clarify.

The IPsec WG recommended that we proceed with publishing it as an 
individual informational submission (which is where we are in the 
process), since any changes to RFC2401 would be better rolled into the 
(then pending, now emerging) update to 2401 rather than endorsed in a 
separate WG document (such changes have already been incorporated in the 
current 2401bis draft). Our draft adds to that primarily in discussing 
the issues - which is why we are proceeding with publication as 
informational.

All these issues have been discussed in the IPsec and PPVPN WGs many 
times before.

Joe