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

[Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>]

Michael,

> 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.

It seems to me that this argument should be brought to the WG when/if
it goes in that direction. Not sure how this is related to the WG
charter per se.

> 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.

The term "VPN" has been used within the context of this work for quite
a while both in the industry and the IETF. It seems that changing it
now is not warranted and would only cause confusion.

Thanks.

Alex