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

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 09:10:11 -0700 (MST)

> From: "W. Mark Townsley" <[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.
>
> By definition, any charter revision is simply proposed until the IESG
> approves it. 

That sounds like a misleading statement in the sense
that it is trying to recast change of the charter.

> 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?

That sounds like a misleading statement in the sense that it implies
that I did express an opinion on the charter last summer.  I really
don't think I did.

> > 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.
>
> 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)." 

That is a misleading statement of the history of the working group as I
recall it.  The "L2" in the group's name came from the Cisco protocol,
not from the reason Cisco named the protocol.  The group was not created
to deal with arbitrary L2 packets or protocols, but instead was created
to deal with the multi-chassis problem.

> I have no desire to rewrite history of what the original intent of L2
> was in L2TP.

but you just did.

>                       if we have created something that can be built
> upon, I see no good reason to start from scratch elsewhere.

Protocols such as the lastest bad idea that has nothing to do with
PPP are not building on L2TP.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: "W. Mark Townsley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:20:01 -0500

> that it is trying to recast change of the charter.

Just stating facts as I understand them.

> that I did express an opinion on the charter last summer.  I really

This was not a statement, it was a question. Regardless of what you did
last summer (this sounds like a bad movie already) you were shocked that
you would have made comment on charter minutia at that time based on
your admitted lurking position in this group. I am curious as to why now
is any different than then. You either don't know yourself any better
now than you did then, or you are paying attention to this group's
actions more. 

> to deal with the multi-chassis problem.

The group was created to merge PPTP and L2F. The multi-chassis problem
was *one* of the motivations for L2F at cisco. The multichassis problem
certainly was not the widest use of PPTP at the time. 

> > I have no desire to rewrite history of what the original intent of L2

Only your recollection of it.

> PPP are not building on L2TP.

I think an open mind is a better route to take. That said, I see very
well crafted arguments in favor of using existing protocols (BCP and PPP
with L2TP) for the Ethernet over L2TP case. I prefer this type of
discussion in the group vs. a closed, "we only do PPP, go away if you
don't like it" approach.