Subject: Washington, D.C. PPPEXT Meeting Summary

From: Karl Fox <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 13:49:58 -0800

DESE, PPP over AAL5 and PPP over FUNI are all currently in WG last
call.  3DESE and the PPP LCP Extensions draft are awaiting IESG
approval.  The earlier interoperability experience poll for PPP LCP
Callback will be repeated, this time with a detailed form to ensure
adequate detail is provided.  The Self Describing Padding draft will
be reissued awaiting either adequate interoperability experience to
move to Draft Standard, or a decision to move it to Informational.

PPP with Framing Conversion was recommended to go forward as a BCP.
PPP in Frame Relay and PPP in X.25 should move forward to Draft
Standard after conducting interoperability polls.  The draft "PPP for
Asynchronous PAD to Synchronous X.25 access",
draft-rfced-info-khana-01.txt, really falls under the domain of the
ITU since it basically involves an assigned number used to mark X.3
PAD sessions as carrying PPP.

Gary Malkin described Bay's Multi-link Multi-node PPP protocol,
receiving a number of requests for enhancements, including the ability
for a multilink bundle "server" to receive incoming calls.  Questions
were raised about the viability of terminating the various links of a
bundle on different vendors' equipment, each of which may have
different and possibly incompatible default LCP options.

Anita Freeman announced the next CIUG Interoperability Workshop, which
will be held the week of February 23rd.

Stuart Cheshire described a new PPP framing technique that has better
average case overhead and dramatically better worst case overhead than
the standard PPP byte-stuffing approach.  Although it is quite
complex, it may be suitable for applications on dialups or SONET links
where predictability of link usage is important, e.g. when bandwidth
reservation is in use.

Draft -09 of L2TP will be published before the end of the year,
containing only editorial changes and one operational change.  Packet
ordering must now be negotiated when an IP network is the carrier, but
the NR and NS fields may be omitted from packets at the discretion of
the sender.  The L2TP MIB structure will be changed to put each tunnel
under an interface table entry.

Two different drafts were presented for securing L2TP; the -02 version
of L2TP Security Extensions for Non-IP Networks, an integrated
L2TP-specific extension which incorporates IPSEC concepts, and a new
draft which says to use IPSEC on IP networks and describes how to
encapsulate IPSEC headers on non-IP networks.  Questions were raised
on how difficult it would be to apply ISAKMP/Oakley to non-IP
situations, as the IP DOI is apparently a less than perfect fit.
Drafts were also presented on L2TP header compression and L2TP
Alternate Data Channel, a technique for providing multiple L2TP paths
to allow splitting the data stream according to differing security (or
other) requirements.

Bernard Aboba and Jim Zmuda each presented cryptographically based
authentication protocols based on EAP, each complaining that EAP is a
poor fit.  It was suggested that should not use EAP, perhaps working
together to come up with a common framework.
-- 
Karl Fox, servant of God, employee of Ascend Communications
655 Metro Place South, Suite 370, Dublin, Ohio  43017   +1 614 760 4041

---

From: Chip Sharp <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 11:51:41 -0500

Karl Fox wrote in PPPEXT Meeting Summary:
...snip...
> PPP with Framing Conversion was recommended to go forward as a BCP.
...snip...

I assume this will be based on consensus on the list.  
The PPP with Framing Conversion 
draft makes sense as a BCP, but there are some modifications I'd 
recommend before forwarding to the IESG for last call.  If you'd like
I'll repost my previous post with my comments.
Thanks,
Chip
-------------------------------------------------
Chip Sharp		voice: +1 (919) 851-2085
Cisco Systems		Consulting Engineer-ISP/telco		
-------------------------------------------------