Subject: [BEHAVE] BEHAVE status update

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 22:22:43 -0800

An update on some of BEHAVE's activities -- IPv4/IPv6 translation, TURN, and
TURN-TCP:

IPv4/IPv6 Translation:

   - Dave recently sent a Doodle poll to help prioritize documents 
     to adopt.  However, as of Saturday night only 5 people have 
     replied to this poll.  

     We will meet our milestone "Determine relative 
     prioritization of the four translation cases" at the
     San Francisco BEHAVE meeting.

   - Based on the result of the Doodle poll and the San Francisco
     meeting, we will work with Magnus on the next milestone which
     is "Determine what solutions(s) and components are needed to 
     solve each of the four cases.  Create new milestones for the 
     solution(s) and the components."

   - WG documents have been submitted for the Framework document 
     (with updated text) and the Translation document.  We will
     accept them when we adopt new milestones for those items.

   - There has been substantial forward progress on the DNS64 
     document and feedback from DNS experts.  The NAT64
     document is also maturing.  We will accept them when we 
     adopt new milestones for those items.

   - Marcelo is now a co-author of draft-miyata-behave-prefix64 
     and has added text from the author's conference call and
     from some off-list discussions.  I expect the new version 
     will be published soon.

   - There has been substantial off-list discussion of Prefix64
     around how referrals work (or break) depending on LIR or
     well-known prefix.  This is likely to be discussed on
     San Francisco.

TURN:

   - Philip is continuing to close issues raised during IETF last 
     call with the working group.  Once that completes the document
     will be ready for IESG review.

TURN-TCP:

   - Simon Perreault, [email-masked], has agreed to
     be the new editor of TURN-TCP.  Thanks, Simon!

-d

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:22:11 +1300

Hi Dan,

Thanks for the clarity. I do have a couple of questions:

>      to adopt.  However, as of Saturday night only 5 people have 

I read it as being addressed very specifically to implementors
and operators, which will cut down the response rate.
If you want responses from more people, Q3 ("Have you or are
you planning to deploy...?") would need to be phrased somewhat
differently. Or add a Q4 such as "Do you see a clear operational
requirement for...?".

>      San Francisco BEHAVE meeting.

I have the impression that we don't have a current analysis document
about these four scenarios, and reaching a decision just on the basis
of the paragraphs in the charter and a doodle poll seems a bit casual.
Section 1.5 of draft-baker-behave-v4v6-framework-01 does discuss two
cases, with placeholders for two others, but they don't seem to be
quite identical to the cases in the charter. Have I missed a document?

Thanks
     Brian

---

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:23:16 -0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 1:22 AM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: 'Behave WG'; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] BEHAVE status update
>
> Hi Dan,
>

Yes the questions were intentionally tailored to implementers, operators,
and end users who might be already using NAT-PT as an end-user.

I will remind folks of the note at the end of the poll email:
> If you care to provide additional information, then you can
> do so in email to the list in addition to the doodle.

In other words, the doodle is not intended to be limiting.
But there's enough questions there as is and the question like
"do you see a clear operational requirement for" isn't quite boolean
and I think is better judged from on-list discussion.  However,
I'm open to others views on that point.

> quite identical to the cases in the charter. Have I missed a document?

Right now the doc you mention, and draft-arkko-townsley-coexistence-00.txt
both contain a subset of the scenarios and analysis.  It would be
great if there were a single doc, it were complete.

-Dave

> Thanks
>      Brian
> _______________________________________________
> Behave mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave

---

From: Xing Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:06:51 +0800

>>> E meeting.

We try to summary the scenarios in

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-baker-behave-v4v6-framework-02.txt

please comment.

xing