At 6:43 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.
IPv6 is an IP technology. We are supposed to know how to make it
work. L2VPNs (and half of the interesting parts of 2547bis L2VPNs)
are outside the scope of our expertise.
... What kind of
unmitigated disaster would IKE have been if we had just punted it
over to, say,
the ITU?
Worse, no doubt. But I'm not proposing to send the L2VPN work to an
organization with no expertise or credibility in the L2 area.
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.
If we decide that "the problem" is one in our realm, I fully agree.
But transporting layer 2 stuff over IP is not a problem that affects
the Internet. It is a problem for the service providers marketing
departments. The past three yeas have proven that service providers
can satisfy their customers needs with L3VPNs, with
somewhat-interoperable L2VPNs, with non-interoperable L2VPNs, and
with just plain layer 2 circuits. What is "the problem" that the IETF
needs to standardize?
E.g., I'm happier having IPSec than
no security.
Of course. But we'd both be happier if IPsec worked better as a VPN
technology, and applications folks would be happier if it worked
better as an application security technology.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium