On Dec 16, 2012, at 9:12 AM, Lou Berger <[email protected]> wrote: > Brian, > Just want to confirm that Vishwas solution closes this issue. Agreed?
Agreed! Thanks, Brian > > Thanks, > Lou > > On 12/14/2012 4:56 PM, Brian Weis wrote: >> Hi Lou, >> >> On Dec 14, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Lou Berger <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Brian, >>> Opps, should have replied to this message (and not the prior). >>> >>> My previous mail basically said the new requirement is placed on the >>> ADVPN solution, not a particular implementation. I think it's important >>> to ensure that the overall solution provides for Requirement 14, and I'm >>> not sure how this can be done without a requirement. >> >> If I understand correctly, these requirements are intending to be relevant >> to "ADVPN solutions" that don't include network infrastructure. It doesn't >> make sense to me to make a "ADVPN solution" implemented on PCs and comprised >> exclusively of PCs subject to this as a general requirement. >> >> All other MUST requirements in Section 4 seem to apply equally to all use >> cases. >> >>> >>> See below for additional specific responses. >> >> [snip] >> >>>> Lou, would something like the following text in Section 2.2 be a >>>> satisfactory replacement for Requirement 14? >>>> >>>> There is also the case when L3VPNs operate over IPsec Tunnels, >>>> for example Provider Edge (PE) based VPN's. An AD VPN must >>>> support L3VPN as an application protected by the IPsec >>>> Tunnels. >>> >>> it he must was a MUST, sure. >> >> I'd happily support a MUST here. There aren't any other MUSTs outside of >> Section 4, but I don't know why. >> >> Thanks, >> Brian >> >>> >>> Lou >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IPsec mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
