Fwd: Re: WG Review: Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks (l3vpn)

[Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>]

FYI. BTW, it is not clear to me that these announcements
should have gone to the new-work list, since we're splitting
the WG, and actually make the charters tighter, not add more
work... anyways...

-- 
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin/

This is a forwarded message
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
To: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>, new-work@ietf.org
Cc: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, zinin@psg.com
Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2003, 3:18:20 PM
Subject: WG Review: Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks (l3vpn)

===8<==============Original message text===============

I believe that layer-3 VPN work MUST specify what will go into a PKIX
certificate, if PKIX certificates are used to authenticate the end
points.

Also, I continue to object to the term "VPN" when encryption is not
involved. They maybe "virtually-private" networks to some. They are
as secure as in-band signaling was in POTS, and SS7 is now. I.e. not very.

So, call the group l3vn - layer-3 virtual networks.

]       ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine.           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [


===8<===========End of original message text===========