Subject: Re: re-chartering L2TP

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:49:53 -0700

> That is an intentionally misleading statement.  I did not express shock
> at having previously commented on the charter, but instead politely pointed
> out

Politely pointed out..  Hrmmm...

> If modifications to the charter of the L2TP working group were minor
> or required only to complete its work, they would be reasonable and
> in my personal view not worth arguing or even talking about.  However,
> making the working group a permanent fixture, or more accurately, a
> permanently available rubber stamp for proprietary technically bad
> ideas are something else.

Where was this proposed?

> As far as I can tell, Mr. Townsley has tried to substantially modify the
> charter of this working group without obtaining the consensus of mailing
> list. 

Again, I think 5 months to object, then allowing folks to comment on 
the **POTENTIAL** charter he recently drafted is overly generous.

> that the group should last forever to handle tunneling anything over
> anything.  I think that would conflict with the charters of other groups,
> but even if I'm wrong, it is a substantial enough change to require
> consideration by the rest of the IETF.

Oh, so are you suggesting that we take this work to say, CEOT, and 
start to modify L2TP from there?  Perhaps you should (re)review their
proposed charter.

> Where are the words of the new charter, since it is now only proposed
> and no longer a fait accompli?

Perhaps I'm confused, but how does sending an email to the 
WG mailing list with the words ***Potential new charter***
in the subject line constitute this 'stealth' behavior you're 
alluding to.

If your intent is to let it be know that you don't think
the work (i.e., tunneling of PDU types other than PPP via L2TP)
belongs in L2TP, I think you've succeeded in voicing YOUR
opinion. 

-danny

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 13:20:30 -0700 (MST)

Please note that I did not invent the stealth charter change
complaint.  That the L2TP charter is being changed was pointed out
to me privately by someone who had noticed the passing reference
and thought it at best obscure.

> From: "W. Mark Townsley" <[email-masked]>

> ...
> Rechartering to include a standard manner for extension of L2TP for
> other transport types very well may extend its life, but does not
> necessarily make it a permanent fixture. There will be no rubber stamps
> in this group.

On the contrary, the reception of the latest bad idea of Ethernet
over IP has been a rubber stamp resisted only by Mr. Carlson's efforts.

I'm sorry to keep saying "bad idea of Ethernet/IP" for the pain that
doubtless causes.  However, it is an unfortunate idea based on a lack of
knowledge of both theoretical and deployed alternatives and of how actual
PPP and L2TP systems work.  That it should not have received the
currency given by the L2TP WG is my intended point.

>                                                    ... If you want to
> talk rubber stamps, let's compare this to an individual submission that
> gets an Informational RFC number with substantially less chance for
> review.

That's a red herring, particularly in view of my excessively repeated 
and longstanding complaints about that problem in forums where such
complaints are less irrelevant than here.

> My goal is to provide a forum for open discussion and technical review
> for items relevant to L2TP. The original and current charter includes:
> "Define and review the definition of any additional IETF AVPs which are
> of interest to the group." So far, the drafts for other L2 types that
> have been accepted into the group have added nothing more than
> additional AVPs to the protocol. No new messages, no change to the state
> machine, no change to the L2TP header, etc. In fact, at the Pittsburgh
> meeting I was adamant about keeping the scope of the work to within this
> range of extension. I believe the meeting synopsis reflects this.

Let's take the next step and start to shut down the WG.

> ...
> That is why the IESG must approve the charter change. It is also why I
> have already discussed this at length with one of our AD. I do not think
> that the IESG will approve anything that will cause undue overlap of
> engineering effort among the various groups. If this work is being done
> elsewhere in the IETF, I will be more than happy to combine forces or
> step aside if it will result in less code for all of us to write, deploy
> and maintain.
> ...

> Check the archive, I posted it just recently.

I've been trying for a while, but have failed to get any packets from
www.ipsec.org, not to mention joy from http://www.ipsec.org/email/l2tp/

> ...
> > The many years this working group required to approach its chartered
> > goal and the continuing technically bad ideas such as the current
> > one are good reasons to disband the working group sooner than later.
>
> The alternative? No standard for what is now a highly deployed technique
> for access on the Internet (that is, tunneling of PPP). ...

That is an argument for shutting down the L2TP WG, not continuing it.
Anything that is "a highly deployed technique" leaves no room for the IETF
to do more document current practice.  After documenting it, it might be
appropriate to figure out a better replacement, but only after fully
documenting and understanding the status quo.

Instead the L2TP WG is charging off to generate replacements (plural)
without considering that "highly deployed technique."

> In fact, the WG probably stumbled in the past by NOT being more
> open-minded.

We completely disagree.

>              Experience tells me that thinking the WG has the power to
> reduce writing of and deployment of code by telling people to "go away"
> does not reduce the code I ultimately have to write and the number of
> standards I have to support for essentially the same thing.

Experience tells me that a WG has little or no effect on such things.
The IETF and any WG is almost powerless to stop bad ideas.  It's power is
in promoting, not opposing.

> ...
> I think we have spent enough of everyone's time on this thread now. I
> hope that it at least served the purpose for people understanding where
> I am trying to lead this group. Feel free to disagree, but from this
> point on I ask you to take it to the next level rather than waste more
> of our time here.

Given the lack of discussion in the WG mailing list on the de facto new
charter that seems to cover tunneling anything over anything, I
object to your effort to prevent consideration of it.

Ignoring my ranting, so far only those who favor making the L2TP working
group a permanent fixture in charge of all tunnelling in the IETF have
spoken about the de facto charter.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 15:56:25 -0700

> Does the new charter justify considering this Ethernet/IP tunneling protocol?
> I've been trying to get to the archive at http://www.ipsec.org/email/l2tp/ 
> for some time, but it won't answer me.

Carlson posted a pointer for you, I suggest you go review 
the archives.  To that point, NO ONE proposed that that 
EtherIP be adopted by the L2TP WG.  When the EtherIP Last
Call was announced I forwarded it to the L2TP WG because 
similar work and issues were already being debated here.

To be specific, EoL2TP was being considered and employs
the Service Type AVP.  Carlson (and others?) have commented
that there's no reason for EoL2TP as L2TP/PPP/BCP can 
accomplish this and provides more flexibility than the 
EoL2TP proposal, and is standards based.  The merits 
and implications of these three approaches were being 
debated on the L2TP mailing list.

> Do you think that the rest of the IETF or even just the PPP WG knows about
> the plans to have L2TP own all tunneling protocols or that they approve?
> I don't.

The [E|FR|ATM]oL2TP work employs the Service Type AVP with L2TP
and provides the capability for L2TP to tunnel PDU types OTHER
THAN PPP.  As such, I'm not sure there's any reason for the PPP
WG to be involved -- assumming the L2TP WG consensus is reached 
and the charter is approved by the IESG.

Along these lines, I think Mark's behavior as WG chair is 
fine.  Requests for charter extensions were made in May of 
last year.  A number of drafts have been discussed at two 
meetings regarding extending the WG charter to support 
payload types other than just PPP.  Mark sent a 
***PROPOSED*** charter to the WG mailing list [some 
five months have the arguably explicit charter request
was made in email to the WG].
 
> It's past time for the L2TP group to finish.  

Again, I'd suggest you read the mailing list and perhaps 
even associated I-Ds before making such assumptions and 
broad posts.  

Furthermore, any technical comments you have are welcomed
by the authors of the drafts. 

Thanks Vernon!

-danny 

-danny

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 16:23:16 -0700 (MST)

> To: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
> cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
> From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>

> by the authors of the drafts. 

Mr. McPherson,
I don't think I'm quite as stupid as you appear to think I am.  In other
words, I understand your point, but instead of following it, I will do
something like the literal instead of intended meaning of your last words.

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 15:29:16 -0800

>
>I reached the point of asking Vernon, not you, to take his comments to
>the next level only when he decided to speak personally of my actions as
>Chair of this group. That is, any comment that he feels needs to be
>prefaced with "Mr. Townsley did..." I prefer not waste the time of those
>on multiple WG lists and instead be taken directly to the Area
>Directors, IESG, IAB, etc.

ok, I appologize for misunderstanding your response.

>
>I am very much in support of comment on the technical realities of
>taking on this work and have been for many months now. I do, however,
>reject comments about whether I or the WG operated in a "stealth" modus
>operandi just because some people expect that they can read little more
>than subject headings and track a working group's operation. I reject
>any comment labeling something as a "bad idea" without strong technical
>ground and/or a proposal for a better alternative. I further object to
>the opinion that a recharter is out of the question with little more
>basis than it was outside the original scope of the WG at its inception. 

This is actually where I do have a comment. As far as I am concerned,
there was a certain amount of stealth. btw, I think that the fact that
someone pointed out that the charter doesn't match the current work items,
which seemed to have approval of some members of the WG, implies that the
WG was moving in a direction prior to a recharter.

ok, so now let's move on.

>
>As far as the charter is concerned, I welcome your technical comment and
>that of the rest of the group. I do wish that such comment had come a
>long time ago, but understand that some people (myself certainly
>included) tend to wait until the 11th hour on occasion.

Unfortunately, this occurs more often than we'd like.

I am not necessarily opposed to the charter itself, but I do question
the WG's decision to create duplicate work, work that is already
standards track, just because it is possible to get it done within the
framework of a protocol.

I think that we should be held more accountable for our work items, and
we should have to justify adding "duplicate" work.

PatC

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 18:02:01 -0700

> we should have to justify adding "duplicate" work.

Note that the only 'questionable duplication' is that of 
EoL2TP versus L2TP/PPP/BCP.  Even Mark's agreed that this 
is indeed questionable, and as such, the associated merits 
are still being debated on the mailing list.  The EoL2TP
draft was merged with my original L2TP ES draft in order
to provide a common model for other payload types in L2TP,
hence the birth of the Service Type AVP.  

Other work along these lines that employs the Service Type 
(e.g., FR & ATM over L2TP) are not being duplicated (with 
IP-based tunneling -- to my knowledge).  

I guess part of the misunderstanding here lies on my 
shoulders, as I've promised to make the related I-Ds 
available by now, and have yet to do so.  I've ran them 
by some folks already, though I haven't officially posted 
them as of yet, and their availability is perhaps 
germane to this discussion.

-danny

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 18:15:48 -0700

> My position is that these documents SHOULD NOT be discussed until:
> 1. recharter has been agreed upon, and
> 2. documents are available, with the applicability statements
>
> Until then, individual contributions only, and they MUST NOT take
> up scare L2TP engineering resources.

I agree with this, though the individual I-D submissions 
tend to qualify the requirement for the work, that was the
point I was trying to convey.

-danny

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:46:36 -0700

> something like the literal instead of intended meaning of your last words.

I'm not sure I completely understand this comment Vernon.  I 
attempted to provide you with the digest message of the 
current happenings in order to increase your awareness of the 
entire issue, I read the mailing list and all the drafts and 
hope this would have been of benefit to you (and perhaps 
others as well).

I suggested that any technical feedback you'd like to provide 
the authors (of which I am one) is welcomed as well.  I closed 
with a "Thanks []!" like I close a great many of my emails, 
just a common courtesy I guess.  Just to demonstrate this:

[~/mail/outbox]                                                                                     danny@sofos% grep "Thanks\!" *|wc -l
    492 

I'll again encourage you to provide technical feedback on 
the drafts related to extending the L2TP charter, as well 
as on the reasons the charter itself shouldn't be extended 
..  if, of course, you're of this opinion ;-)

Thanks!

-danny

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:07:11 -0800

>hence the birth of the Service Type AVP. 

ok.
 
>IP-based tunneling -- to my knowledge).  

I don't think that you've heard me state that it was, right?

PatC

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:58:08 -0700

And it was explicitly stated in the during the BOF session 
that the intention was to specify requirement that should 
be given to the relevant "encapsulation" protocols (e.g., 
MPLS, L2TP) and the encapsulation protocol-specific work 
should be conducted in those working groups.

I believe the CEOT BOF minutes reflect this.

-danny

> As for tunneling mechanisms, the BOF charter speaks these as follows:
> 
>    The protocols used for tunnel management depend on the type of packet
>    switch network deployed by the carrier.  For example, LDP or RSVP-TE
>    may be used to create and manage tunnels across a packet switched