Subject: L2TP charter

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 16:59:32 -0700 (MST)

The note in 
http://www.diameter.org/cgi-bin/lwgate/L2TP/archives/l2tp.archive.0101/Author/article-44.html

seems inconsistent to me.

The first paragraph, which justifies the charter change, seems much more
restricted than the change, which seems to be:

    Define extensions for layer two protocols to be transported using L2TP
    with coordinated input from other working groups.

That sentence would put the L2TP working group in charge of all layer 2
tunneling.  If that would result in minimal new or changed standards, I'd
be happy.  However, instead of the obvious BCP/PPP-L2TP followed by
shutting down the working group, I think likely that the working group
would continue inventing brand new protocols ever farther afield from IP.

For example, given the group's long term and recently renewed enthusiasm
for doing away with UDP/IP in the bottom of L2TP, what would keep the
group from standardizing tunneling ATM over FDDI?  My example point is
not whether some group should standardized ATM/FDDI, but whether the
***Internet*** Engineering Task Force should be working in such areas.

If you don't like my ATM/FDDI example, how about Ethernet/FR or
Ethernet/SONET?

Any assurance that such things would not happen would fly in the face of
the historical enthusiasm in the L2TP working group for exactly such
efforts.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]