Subject: RE: Draft charter for L3VPN

From: "Bilel Jamoussi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 12:48:48 -0400

Alex,

Now we are really playing games! In your previous email, you mentioned that
there has not been any decision to split the PPVPN WG - but now you are
sending charters. In my view, this is an irresponsible handling of the
proposal as the community has not generally endorsed the proposed split of
the WG. I interpret this as a disregard to the PPVPN WG wishes and a
misuse/abuse of you AD position.

Bilel.

-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Zinin [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 9:52 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Draft charter for L3VPN

Folks-

It is taking longer than I anticipated to set up the mailing lists, so I am
sending the proposed WG charters to this list. These are _drafts_, so are
likely to need more fine-tuning. Below is the proposed charter for L3VPN.
The one on L2VPN is in a separate message. Comments welcome.

--
Alex

Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks (l3vpn)

Chair(s): <under discussion>

Area Director(s):
   Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
   Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>

Area Advisor:
   Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>

Technical Advisor:
   Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>

Description of Working Group:

This working group is responsible for defining and specifying a limited
number of solutions for supporting Layer-3 (routed) Virtual Private Networks
(L3VPNs).

The WG is responsible for standardization of the following solutions:

   1. BGP/MPLS IP VPNs (based on RFC 2547)
   2. IP VPNs using Virtual Routers
   3. CE-based VPNs using IPSEC

As part of this effort the WG will work on the following tasks (additional
work items will require rechartering):

   1. Requirements and framework for Layer 3 VPNs
   2. Solution documents for each approach listed above (including
      applicability statements)
   3. MIB definitions for each approach
   4. Security mechanisms for each approach

Multicast support and Inter-AS considerations are excluded from the charter 
at this time. They may be considered for inclusion in an updated charter 
at a later time. Future work items may also include OAM support.

As a general rule, the WG will not create new protocols, but will provide 
functional requirements for extensions of the existing protocols that will 
be discussed in the protocol-specific WGs.

WG Milestones (optimistic):

Dec 2002 Submit L3 VPN Requirements Document to IESG for publication as Info
         (completed)
Dec 2002 Submit L3 VPN Framework Document to IESG for publication as Info
         (completed)
Aug 2003 Submit L3 VPN Security Analysis to IESG for publication as Info
         (draft-fang-ppvpn-security-framework-00)
Aug 2003 Submit BGP/MPLS VPNs specification and AS to IESG for publication
as PS
         (draft-ietf-ppvpn-rfc2547bis-03, draft-ietf-ppvpn-as2547-01)

Sep 2003 Submit CE-based specification and AS to IESG for publication as PS
         (draft-ietf-ppvpn-ce-based-03)
Sep 2003 Submit Virtual Router specification and AS to IESG for publication
as PS
         (draft-ietf-ppvpn-vpn-vr-03, draft-ietf-ppvpn-as-vr-01) Oct 2003
Submit VPN MIB Textual Conventions to IESG for publication as PS
         (draft-ietf-ppvpn-tc-mib-02)
Oct 2003 Submit MPLS BGP MIB to IESG for publication as PS
         (draft-ietf-ppvpn-mpls-vpn-mib-05)
Oct 2003 Submit VR MIB to IESG for publication as PS
         (draft-ietf-ppvpn-vr-mib-04)

Dec 2003 Submit specification of using IPSEC for PE-PE encapsulation in
BGP/MPLS VPNs to IESG
         for publication as PS
         (draft-ietf-ppvpn-ipsec-2547-03)
Jan 2003 Submit specification of using GRE for PE-PE encapsulation in
BGP/MPLS VPNs to IESG
         for publication as PS
         (draft-ietf-ppvpn-gre-ip-2547-02)

Jan 2003 Submit specification of CE Route Authentication to IESG for
publication as PS
         (draft-ietf-ppvpn-l3vpn-auth-03)

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 09:58:12 -0700

Bilel,

 Try to not think that conspiracy is everywhere, for a change, please.

 I promised to send proposed charters from the very beginning, plus
 several people asked for them explicitly. One needs to see the
 proposed charters to decide if the split makes sense.

-- 
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin/