On Jan 29, 2012, at 5:11 PM, Stephen Hanna wrote: > Sorry to be late in responding. I've been working with other > Juniper folks to figure out which of us should volunteer to > edit the P2P VPN problem statement. But never mind about that. > > I am willing to edit the P2P VPN problem statement document. > I know that we need to have a draft promptly and get some serious > discussion going on the email list before IETF 83. There are > plenty of interesting questions related to requirements that > we'll want to discuss on the list and in person at IETF 83. > > Praveen Sathyanarayan from Juniper has already committed to > write an Informational RFC documenting our current solution. > And I think it's premature to start work on the common > solution before we've agreed on the problem statement or > at least nailed down the main issues. Don't you agree?
Indeed. But we need to be sure there is enough interest in even nailing down the main issues. So, thank you for your willingness to edit the problem statement: that gets it going. How many people here will commit publicly to review drafts of the problem statement and contribute ideas such as "this should be a requirement" and "that thing there should not be a requirement"? --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
