On Nov 21, 2011, at 10:09 PM, Stephen Hanna wrote: > The conclusion of Wednesday night's P2P VPN side meeting > was that we would start a new thread on the proposed > ipsecme charter change and resolve the open questions > by email. Let's start off with the text that came out > of Wednesday's meeting and the questions raised there. > > The text from the meeting describing the problem to > be solved was: > > In an environment with many IPsec gateways and remote > clients that share an established trust infrastructure > (in a single administrative domain or across multiple > domains), customers want to get on-demand mesh IPsec > capability for efficiency. However, this cannot be > feasibly accomplished only with today's IPsec and IKE > due to problems with address lookup, reachability, > policy configuration, etc. > > And the main open questions from the meeting were: > > * Should we create a problem statement and requirements > draft?
Yes, but I wouldn't mind if that PS/Requirements/Use-case document never got published. It's a means, not an end. > * Should we create a Standards Track document with > the solution or just document existing proprietary > vendor solutions in Informational RFCs? Both. Yoav _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
