Subject: Requirements Draft

From: "Horn, Mike" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 08:15:15 -0600

Sorry if this is a duplicate, there might have been an issue on my first
post of this to the list.  Thanks.

I have been exchanging several private emails with Scott Kelly about the
current requirements draft.  There are a few issues which are referenced
briefly in the draft, but are not explicitly stated as requirements.  Most
of these issues are contentious, but I think the VPN user community has
already established these as requirements by developing proprietary
solutions for most, if not all of these issues. 

Issues:

1) The IRAS and IRAC SHOULD support NAT traversal.
2) The IRAC SHOULD support redundant gateways.
3) The IRAS and IRAC SHOULD support a keepalive or make dead mechanism.
4) The IRAS SHOULD support auditing of the assigned VIP, public IP, and
username in addition to the start and end time.
5) The IRAS and IRAC MAY support load balancing.

I understand these issues might fall into a gray area between the IPSRA and
IPSEC working groups, but these are true needs of the user community and
should be addressed.  I think the requirements draft is the  right place to
capture user requirements, it shouldn't mandate the solutions for how these
requirements are met, but it should clearly define the needs of the user
community.

Mike Horn