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