Subject: Repost

From: "W. Mark Townsley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 21:10:43 -0500

Just to dispell any doubt that this is the first time readers of the
list have seen anything regarding l2tp carrying more than PPP, I will
repost the relevant text.

From:

http://www.diameter.org/cgi-bin/lwgate/L2TP/archives/l2tp.archive.0008/date/article-24.html

This is the synopsis that I sent to the Working Group and Area Directors
after the meeting. I don't remember seeing any signficant opposition to
this statement on the list.

"Consensus in the [Pittsburgh] 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."

I have made the minimum necessary updates to l2tp-bis, though in San
Diego there was a request for more (specifically, splitting the draft
into two pieces - one for L2TP, the other for PPP over L2TP). I am
working with Thomas now with regard to the l2tpext charter.

- Mark