Paul,
At 1:31 PM -0700 6/18/03, Vach Kompella wrote:
I'm not sure how to argue with the statement "the IETF has done a
horrible job with a similar working group, so we want our working
group in the IETF".
Well, how about, we can't agree on IPv6 numbering schemes, so let's find another
standards org to fix that problem. We can't decide whether site-local is good
for IPv6 or not, so let's find another standards org. ... What kind of
unmitigated disaster would IKE have been if we had just punted it over to, say,
the ITU?
Alternatively, we can own up that it is OUR problem, i.e., the IETF, and if we
want a solution, we will create one here. E.g., I'm happier having IPSec than
no security.
<similar problems in IPSEC snipped>
Er, yes it is. There is no indication that we will do a better job
than the terrible job we are doing now. What you propose sounds like
"we're terrible parents for our six children and barely have enough
time to pay attention to them, but maybe we'll be better with the
seventh."
No, it's not. Having a seventh child is an option. No-one is clamoring for
that seventh child.
It's more like having seven kids and not having enough money for 7 holiday
gifts, and so declaring that one of the kids should go to a foster parent.
Do you think the new L2VPN charter addresses these concerns of scoping? How
about the timelines? Basically, it's going to be a WG issue, chairs and
participants, to finish the WG charter items first.
Why do you think that the re-chartered WG will have any more luck
with these than the current one? There are a zillion hardware vendors
and service providers who have reasons to want the dozens of
documents that are in the current WGs, and it takes very little
effort on their part to promote their views. The IETF structure does
poorly in such an environment; maybe a different standards body would
do better.
I thought that Moskowitz and Tso did a pretty good job of not letting new stuff
into IPSec towards the end.
Is there no perceptible difference between the rather open-ended ppvpn charter
and the rather more focused l2vpn/l3vpn charters? Maybe that was a leading
question :-)
I have rather studiously avoided submitting three new drafts that may address
issues that some folks have raised concerns about. As usual, thinking up new
thoughts and solutions is a lot more fun than finishing the job at hand. That's
where individual submissions should stay until the current plate is cleaned up.
No time in the agenda, nothing but mailing list and individual submission
opportunity.
Are you talking PWE3 or L2VPN?
Yes. There is a significant amount of spillage between the two.
Not really.
There are 16 pseudowire types:
0x0001 Frame Relay DLCI
0x0002 ATM AAL5 SDU VCC transport
0x0003 ATM transparent cell transport
0x0004 Ethernet Tagged Mode
0x0005 Ethernet
0x0006 HDLC
0x0007 PPP
0x0008 SONET/SDH Circuit Emulation Service Over MPLS (CEM) [8]
0x0009 ATM n-to-one VCC cell transport
0x000A ATM n-to-one VPC cell transport
0x000B IP Layer2 Transport
0x000C ATM one-to-one VCC Cell Mode
0x000D ATM one-to-one VPC Cell Mode
0x000E ATM AAL5 PDU VCC transport
0x000F Frame-Relay Port mode
0x0010 SONET/SDH Circuit Emulation over Packet (CEP)
At least half of these are and have been interoperable. It is the
harder (and
more arcane, IMHO) PW types that people are having a hard time coming to some
sort of compromise.
And why should the IETF care at all about these? There are other fora
for layer-2 interworking.
OK. Which of those arcane PWs is relevant to ppvpn? The ones ppvpn is
concerned with are pretty well established and interoperable.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium
-Vach