+1 from me as well. The approach is a good idea, and the WG should proceed as outlined.
Mark On Dec 12, 2011, at 10:32 AM, <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: > +1, Thanks, --David > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Stephen Hanna >> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:19 AM >> To: Yoav Nir; IPsecme WG >> Cc: Paul Hoffman >> Subject: Re: [IPsec] Large Scale VPN >> >> Yes, I definitely think this is a good idea. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Steve >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf >>> Of Yoav Nir >>> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:45 AM >>> To: IPsecme WG >>> Cc: Paul Hoffman >>> Subject: Re: [IPsec] Large Scale VPN >>> >>> Hi all >>> >>> If we want Paul and Yaron to take this to our AD, we need to show that >>> there are more people who think these work items are a good idea. More >>> people than just me and MCR. So please show your support (or >>> objections!) soon. An "I think this is a good idea", "I think we should >>> use ternary logic", or "+1" is all it takes. >>> >>> Yoav >>> >>> On Dec 8, 2011, at 10:06 PM, Yoav Nir wrote: >>>> >>>> Agree. How about: >>>> >>>> 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 >>> point-to-point 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. >>>> >>>> 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 standardize one of the vendor >>> solutions, a combination, an superset of such a solution, or a new >>> protocol. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IPsec mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec >> _______________________________________________ >> IPsec mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec > > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
