Subject: Re: Notes from 49th IETF L2TPEXT in San Diego

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 21:23:08 -0700 (MST)

> From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>

> I think anyone who has read the mailing list should be aware 
> of the work and ***PROPOSED*** charter modifications.

"Proposed?"  As far as I can tell, those in favor of the charter
modification have been saying it is a done-deal.

>                                                        I'm not 
> sure if folks were expecting a personal email directly to them 
> requesting their review and acceptance of the new charter -- 
> BEFORE it was proposed to the WG, but if they were, well, I
> guess that's unfortunate.
>
> There was email requesting the charter change as early as 
> May of last year, from myself and a number of others.  There
> were discussion last July that even you participated in.

Given my intentional mostly lurking position here, my general reluctance
to talk about charters, agendas, and other committee minutia, and my
ignorance of its current details, I'm surprised to hear that I expressed
an opinion about it.  All I can find in my logs are my expressions of
opposition to yet another tunneling protocol.

Could you point out my words in an archive or give me some other
hint of what I've said about this new charter?

> And another discussion (I reference again for sake of brevity):
>
> []
> Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 19:02:26 -0400
> From: "W. Mark Townsley" <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: l2tpext meeting synopsis
>
> .....
> Consensus in the meeting was that l2tpext will define only the
> extensions necessary to L2TP for carrying other PDUs, within the
> confines of L2TP's extensibility framework (e.g. new AVPs, but no
> changes in the L2TP protocol itself). This will involve standardization
> of the AVP(s) that identify the type of PDU to be carried, and new or
> existing AVPs that will be used during L2TP call setup or teardown. Any
> real time signaling or modifications to the particular protocol being
> carried by L2TP are outside the scope of l2tpext WG. If consensus is
> concurred on the mailing list, l2tp-bis and the l2tpext charter will be
> revised accordingly.
> .....

> Because consensus can't officially be reached in the meeting, 
> Mark sent the above message to the mailing list.  I'm not 
> quite sure I understand what's stealthly about this?  You've 
> had, umm.., over 5 months to object to this, and Mark's just 
> getting around to ***PROPOSING*** the new charter wording now.

It is an overstatement to describe that paragraph as disclosing a plan to
change to the charter.

> What more is it that you expect?

How about an explicit statement of the new charter and an explicit
request for comments about it instead of a bad-idea protocol that
assumes the charter is in effect?

> If you don't believe this work belongs here, then please let
> us know why.  I really can't think of another IP-based Layer
> 2 Tunneling Protocol that would be more applicable than L2TP, 
> especially with the dynamic tunnel and session capabilities,
> extensible signaling model, trivial modifications to support
> Service Types, etc..

Not only do most protocols and applications not need to be documentd
in IETF RFC's or rubber (or otherwise) stamped by an IETF WG, most
protocols and applications should not even be considered by any IETF WG.
The IETF does not exist merely to add marketing muscle to proprietary
protocols or applications.

Anyone who watched this WG work on its reason for existing (the L2TP
protocol) and wanted to get a protocol and/or application into the field
before IPv6 is obsolete and who really thinks the protocol or application
would have a life without an IETF rubber stamp would run away.

> And I'm aware of several deployed implementations that use 
> L2TP for this purpose (other than PPP) today.  It just seems 
> fitting, I guess, using L2TP to tunnel layer 2 protocols. 
> And it also makes sense to standardize a common model for 
> L2 transport over IP before lots of different models are 
> deployed.

It is not clear to me that L2TP is the right working group for a common
model of L2 transport over IP.  I'm not sure the other groups that are
working on it are right either, but they generally seem less wrong.  Yes,
I know that the "T" stands for Tunnel, but no, contrary to what some 
have said over the years, the "L2" does did not mean just any layer 2.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: "W. Mark Townsley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:59:31 -0500

> modification have been saying it is a done-deal.

By definition, any charter revision is simply proposed until the IESG
approves it. 

[ snip ]

> opposition to yet another tunneling protocol.

Are you any more clued into the "committee minutia" and such at present?
Are you any less surprised to hear yourself commenting on it now?

[ snip ]

> have said over the years, the "L2" does did not mean just any layer 2.

Which other groups are you referring to, and why do they generally seem
"less wrong"?

"L2" originally came from L2F, which (From RFC2341) referred to L2 as,
"link layer (i.e., HDLC,
async HDLC, or SLIP frames)." 

I have no desire to rewrite history of what the original intent of L2
was in L2TP. However, if we have created something that can be built
upon, I see no good reason to start from scratch elsewhere.