RE: IPSP topics

["Wang, Cliff " <CWang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

A reason to discuss the high level policy layout here is that under a real
deployment,
both the high level policy and the low level policy have dependency on each
other and
need to work together.
So it is not hard to imagine that low level and high level policies designed
separately 
may result in a "disconnect" and lead to implementation difficulties.

-----Original Message-----
From: Abdallah Rayhan [mailto:arayhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 4:44 PM
To: Wang, Cliff
Cc: 'Hilarie Orman'; ipsec-policy@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: IPSP topics



While this WG is focusing on low-level policies, that should not
stop us from developing a view of high-level policies. I dont see any
reason not to discuss this item on the list and write an internet
draft to cover the requirements. This should serve two purposes:
1-serve as a main work item for a new WG if there is a consensus
for such an action when it becomes obvious that it is beyond
the scope of the WG charter,
2- align the two views (low and high levels) together to achieve
interoperability between the two.

my two cents.

Abdallah

"Wang, Cliff" wrote:

> One topic of interests is to define the requirements for network level VPN
> deployment
> policy.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hilarie Orman [mailto:horman@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 10:27 PM
> To: ipsec-policy@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: IPSP topics
>
> After the WG meeting in Pittsburgh, there were several good topics
> raised at the front of the room.  Luis and I asked that these topics
> be raised on this list.  Please step forward, those of you advocating
> some new ideas and approaches.
>
> Also, if you are planning on producing or revising a draft, please
> send a note to this list now.  We want to get discussion going well
> before San Diego.
>
> Hilarie Orman
> IPSP co-chair