Hi, We'd prefer dmvpn( http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-detienne-dmvpn-00) to become the wg document.
The main reason for our recommendation are: - It is what customers are asking for. - We actually prefer that there are 2 separate protocols that co-operate to build the complete solution as it gives us the flexibility for each one to exist without mandating the other. - It was fairly easy to build a solution using open-nhrp and strongswan. Thanks -Saurabh Mohan. On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Yaron Sheffer <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear IPsecME folks, > > There is clear working group interest in a standard auto-discovery VPN > solution. We have agreed-upon requirements [1]. And we have 3 serious > contenders [2] [3] [4] for the solution. It is time to select a protocol to > adopt into the working group. > > We would like to ask people who are *not* authors on any of the solution > drafts to send a short message to the list, saying which of the three they > prefer, and a few reasons for their choice. > > Please do *not* send mail saying which of the protocols you do *not* like > - this would be far less useful. And please do not think up a new solution > proposal, it's too late for that. > > A quick process reminder: once we adopt a protocol, it becomes the > starting point for the working group document. The WG can change the editor > team and is free to make material changes to the protocol before it is > published as RFC. > > Thanks, > Paul and Yaron > > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7018 > [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mao-ipsecme-ad-vpn-protocol-02 > [3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sathyanarayan-ipsecme-advpn-03 > [4] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-detienne-dmvpn-00 > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec >
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
