We as a group can commit to deliverable #1 and #3 (problem statement and
standardized solution). But deliverable #2 (vendor protocols) is mostly
out of our hands. So before we approve this charter, I would like to
hear from people that represent vendors that they can commit to publish
such a draft for their favorite solution. With a mostly complete -00
draft in, say, 4/2012. Please respond to the list or privately to Paul
and myself.
Also, I suggest to replace the sentence "The working group may consider
multiple proposals, and then choose one to bring to the standards
track." by "The working group may standardize one of the vendor
solutions, a combination of several, or a new protocol." The latter is
clearer, at least to me.
Thanks,
Yaron
On 12/08/2011 06:04 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Dec 8, 2011, at 1:55 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
In an environment with many IPsec gateways and remote clients that share an
established trust infrastructure (in a single administrative domain or across
multiple domains), customers want to get on-demand mesh IPsec capability for
efficiency. However, this cannot be feasibly accomplished only with today's
IPsec and IKE due to problems with address lookup, reachability, policy
configuration, etc.
I don't think "mesh" is a well-defined term here. How about "point-to-point"?
The IPsecME working group will handle this large scale VPN problem by
delivering the following:
* The working group will create a problem statement document including use
cases, definitions and proper requirements for discovery and updates. This
document would be solution-agnostic. Should reach WG last call around October
2012.
* The working group will review and help publish Informational documents
describing current vendor proprietary solutions. These should be ready for IETF
last call by August 2012.
* The working group will choose a common solution for the discovery and update
problems that will satisfy the requirements in the problem statement document.
The working group may consider multiple proposals, and then choose one to bring
to the standards track.
We would need a deadline for the last item. I suggest "December 2013".
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
