Vishwas,
        This sounds reasonable to me.

Much thanks!

Lou

On 12/14/2012 5:09 PM, Vishwas Manral wrote:
> Hi Brian/ Lou,
> 
> So as a resolution for this, the only change required would be replacing
> the requirement to:
> 
> There is also the case when L3VPNs operate over IPsec Tunnels, for
> example Provider Edge (PE) based VPN's. An ADVPN MUST support L3VPN as
> an application protected by the IPsec Tunnels.
> 
> I can do that now and post the new version of the draft across.
> 
> Thanks,
> Vishwas
> =====================================================
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Brian Weis <b...@cisco.com
> <mailto:b...@cisco.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Lou,
> 
>     On Dec 14, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net
>     <mailto:lber...@labn.net>> wrote:
> 
>     > Brian,
>     >       Opps, should have replied to this message (and not the prior).
>     >
>     > My previous mail basically said the new requirement is placed on the
>     > ADVPN solution, not a particular implementation.  I think it's
>     important
>     > to ensure that the overall solution provides for Requirement 14,
>     and I'm
>     > not sure how this can be done without a requirement.
> 
>     If I understand correctly, these requirements are intending to be
>     relevant to "ADVPN solutions" that don't include network
>     infrastructure. It doesn't make sense to me to make a "ADVPN
>     solution" implemented on PCs and comprised exclusively of PCs
>     subject to this as a general requirement.
> 
>     All other MUST requirements in Section 4 seem to apply equally to
>     all use cases.
> 
>     >
>     > See below for additional specific responses.
> 
>     [snip]
> 
>     >> Lou, would something like the following text in Section 2.2 be a
>     >> satisfactory replacement for Requirement 14?
>     >>
>     >>    There is also the case when L3VPNs operate over IPsec Tunnels,
>     >>    for example Provider Edge (PE) based VPN's. An AD VPN must
>     >>    support L3VPN as an application protected by the IPsec
>     >>    Tunnels.
>     >
>     > it he must was a MUST, sure.
> 
>     I'd happily support a MUST here. There aren't any other MUSTs
>     outside of Section 4, but I don't know why.
> 
>     Thanks,
>     Brian
> 
>     >
>     > Lou
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
> 
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec

Reply via email to