NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 44th IETF Meeting in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It may now be out-of-date. Last Modified: 25-Jan-99
Chair(s):
Karl Fox <karl@xc.org>
Internet Area Director(s):
Jeffrey Burgan <burgan@corp.home.net>
Thomas Narten <narten@raleigh.ibm.com>
Internet Area Advisor:
Jeffrey Burgan <burgan@corp.home.net>
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion:ietf-ppp@merit.edu
To Subscribe: ietf-ppp-request@merit.edu
Archive: ftp://merit.edu/pub/ietf-ppp-archive
Description of Working Group:
Note: A seperate list has been set up for L2TP discussions
L2TP Discussions:l2tp@ipsec.org
To Subscribe: l2tp-request@ipsec.org
Archive: http://bodhi.zendo.com/vandys/l2tp-mail
The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) was designed to encapsulate multiple protocols. IP was the only network layer protocol defined in the original documents. The working group is defining the use of other network layer protocols and options for PPP. The group will define the use of protocols including: bridging, ISO, DECNET (Phase IV and V), XNS, and others. In addition, it will define new PPP options for the existing protocol definitions, such as stronger authentication and encryption methods.
No Goals and Milestones
Internet-Drafts:
· Point-to-Point Tunneling Protocol (PPTP)
· Layer Two Tunneling Protocol 'L2TP'
· Semi Connected Mode for PPP links
· Layer Two Tunneling Protocol 'L2TP' Security Extensions for Non-IP networks
· PPP LCP Self Describing Padding
· PPP EAP ISAKMP Authentication Protocol
· Layer Two Tunneling Protocol 'L2TP' Management Information Base
· PPP EAP TLS Authentication Protocol
· PPP Consistent Overhead Byte Stuffing (COBS)
· PPP EAP KEA Public Key Authentication Protocol
· PPP Fortezza Encryption Encapsulation Protocol
· PPP EAP DSS Public Key Authentication Protocol
· PPP Certificate Exchange Protocol
· L2TP-over-IP Path MTU Discovery (''L2TPMTU'')
· L2TP Alternate Data Channel (``L2TPADC'')
· Layer Two Tunneling Protocol ''L2TP'' IP Differential Services Extension
· Layer Two Tunneling Protocol ''L2TP'' Multi-Protocol Label Switching Extension
· Microsoft Point-To-Point Encryption (MPPE) Protocol
· PPP Link Balancing Detection (LBD)
· L2TP Dynamic Data Window Adjustment
· Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP) over Frame Relay
· Applicability Statement for PPP over SONET/SDH
· Deriving MPPE Keys From MS-CHAP V1 Credentials
· Microsoft PPP CHAP Extensions, Version 2
· Deriving MPPE Keys From MS-CHAP V2 Credentials
· PPP over Simple Data Link (SDL) using SONET/SDH with ATM-like framing
· Framework for L2TP Message Extensions
Request For Comments:
RFC |
Status |
Title |
RFC1332 |
PS |
The PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol (IPCP) |
RFC1378 |
PS |
The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP) |
RFC1377 |
PS |
The PPP OSI Network Layer Control Protocol (OSINLCP) |
RFC1473 |
PS |
The Definitions of Managed Objects for the IP Network Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol |
RFC1472 |
PS |
The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Security Protocols of the Point-to-Point Protocol |
RFC1471 |
PS |
The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Link Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol |
RFC1474 |
PS |
The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Bridge Network Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol |
RFC1553 |
PS |
Compressing IPX Headers Over WAN Media (CIPX) |
RFC1552 |
PS |
The PPP Internetwork Packet Exchange Control Protocol (IPXCP) |
RFC1547 |
Requirements for an Internet Standard Point-to-Point Protocol | |
RFC1570 |
PS |
PPP LCP Extensions |
RFC1598 |
PS |
PPP in X.25 |
RFC1618 |
PS |
PPP over ISDN |
RFC1619 |
PS |
PPP over SONET/SDH |
RFC1638 |
PS |
PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) |
RFC1663 |
PS |
PPP Reliable Transmission |
RFC1661 |
S |
The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) |
RFC1662 |
S |
PPP in HDLC-like Framing |
RFC1764 |
PS |
The PPP XNS IDP Control Protocol (XNSCP) |
RFC1763 |
PS |
The PPP Banyan Vines Control Protocol (BVCP) |
RFC1762 |
DS |
The PPP DECnet Phase IV Control Protocol (DNCP) |
RFC1968 |
PS |
The PPP Encryption Control Protocol (ECP) |
RFC1962 |
PS |
The PPP Compression Control Protocol (CCP) |
RFC1973 |
PS |
PPP in Frame Relay |
RFC1975 |
PPP Magnalink Variable Resource Compression | |
RFC1977 |
PPP BSD Compression Protocol | |
RFC1979 |
PPP Deflate Protocol | |
RFC1967 |
PPP LZS-DCP Compression Protocol (LZS-DCP) | |
RFC1974 |
PPP Stac LZS Compression Protocol | |
RFC1976 |
PPP for Data Compression in Data Circuit-Terminating Equipment (DCE) | |
RFC1963 |
PPP Serial Data Transport Protocol (SDTP) | |
RFC1990 |
DS |
The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP) |
RFC1989 |
DS |
PPP Link Quality Monitoring |
RFC1978 |
PPP Predictor Compression Protocol | |
RFC1993 |
PPP Gandalf FZA Compression Protocol | |
RFC1994 |
DS |
PPP Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol (CHAP) |
RFC2043 |
PS |
The PPP SNA Control Protocol (SNACP) |
RFC2097 |
PS |
The PPP NetBIOS Frames Control Protocol (NBFCP) |
RFC2118 |
Microsoft Point-To-Point Compression (MPPC) Protocol | |
RFC2125 |
PS |
The PPP Bandwidth Allocation Protocol (BAP) The PPP Bandwidth Allocation Control Protocol (BACP) |
RFC2153 |
PPP Vendor Extensions | |
RFC2290 |
PS |
Mobile-IPv4 Configuration Option for PPP IPCP |
RFC2284 |
PS |
PPP Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) |
RFC2363 |
PS |
PPP Over FUNI |
RFC2364 |
PS |
PPP over AAL5 |
RFC2419 |
PS |
The PPP DES Encryption Protocol, Version 2 (DESE-bis) |
RFC2420 |
PS |
The PPP Triple-DES Encryption Protocol (3DESE) |
RFC2433 |
Microsoft PPP CHAP Extensions | |
RFC2484 |
PS |
PPP LCP Internationalization Configuration Option |
RFC2509 |
PS |
IP Header Compression over PPP |
PPP Extensions Working Group Agenda
44th IETF-Minneapolis, MN
77 people signed the blue sheet.
Chair: Karl Fox (karl@extant.net)
Reported by Matt Holdrege (matt@ascend.com)
Tuesday, March 16, 1999, 1545-1645
PPP-IPSec Interoperability Workshop Update
Anita Freeman <anfreema@cisco.com>
Anita Freeman announced the May 23rd-28th PPP/VPN Interoperability workshop
They hope to test:
- Ipsec/IKE/CA
- L2TP w/o flow control
- L2TP w/Ipsec
- CCP with MPPC& MPPE
- MS Chap V2
- EAP
- PPTP
- PPPoE
SDL
- draft-ietf-pppext-sdl-01.txt
- James Carlson <carlson@ironbridgenetworks.com>
Why have PPP over SDL for Sonet/SDH?
- Low overhead
- Zero data expansion
- Well characterized algorithm
- Freely available
Other options:
Standard octet synchronous HDLC could have overhead under certain scenarios. With SDL, the header is predictable.
HDLC-32 and Ether-like Framing are other options.
The intentions are for the draft to be a working document for this group.
Others said we already have a method for PPP over Sonet. Why do we need two? The authors are worried about the overhead of the standard scheme for link rates higher than OC-192.
It was suggested that the SDL draft state that it's application is only for speeds higher than OC192. Then it was suggested that SDL be classified as Experimental.
The authors agreed that the draft would state that it is for speeds above OC-192 and that it would be in the Experimental class. There were no further objections.
L2TP
- draft-ietf-pppext-l2tp-14.txt
- Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>
Mark Townsley and Bill Palter described the status of L2TP (draft-ietf-pppext-l2tp-14.txt). Most of the items that have been brought up on the list have been resolved by rough consensus. The issues that have not yet achieved consensus are L2TP and IPsec and the Cisco IPR issue.
Mark will provide text on how L2TP and IPsec are used together. The Cisco IPR issue was presented with further discussion put off til Wednesday.
L2TP ATM Access Network Extensions
- draft-ietf-pppext-l2tp-atmext-00.txt
- Yves T'joens <tjoensy@rc.bel.alcatel.be>
Yves Tjoens talked on L2TP ATM Access Network Extensions. There were some questions for clarification, but no significant objections.
Wednesday, March 17, 1999, 1530-1730
L2TP Link Extensions
- draft-ietf-pppext-l2tp-link-00.txt
- Bill Palter palter@zev.net
- Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>
Bill had nothing to comment on, merely that the draft was available.
Mark Townsley and Bill Palter discussed Cisco's IPR claim on L2TP. Robert Barr (rbarr@cisco.com) from Cisco is the IPR contact and his contact information is on the IETF IPR web page.
There was unanimous agreement in the room to move the draft forward. A few people who had agreed to move forward still wanted to ask Cisco to make clear their intentions about licensing terms for their patents. Mark said he will do all he can to get Cisco to state that they will treat this issue with fair and non-discriminatory practices.
None received.