> I'm not sure how to argue with the statement "the IETF has done ahorrible 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