Subject: RE: [Ietf-behave] WG last call: draft-ietf-behave-nat-udp-01.txt

From: Pyda Srisuresh <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 07:26:28 -0700 (PDT)

--- Christian Huitema <huitema@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > I have strong objections to reverse the decision to go
> > > ahead with separate documents.
> > 
> > Are you even LISTENING???  Nobody is proposing to reverse the decision
> to
> > separate the TCP and UDP documents.  Nobody is proposing to "reverse"
> any
> > earlier decision at all.  We're basically just proposing to generalize
> the
> > existing Nov 05 "ICMP" milestone into a "transport-independent
> behavior"
> > milestone, and bring it forward in the schedule to go alongside the
> UDP
> > draft.
> 
> I have a strong opposition against delaying the publication of an UDP
> specific document by trying to build up an artificial "common
> requirement" document. There is no consensus that such a document can
> even be done, as many NAT implement separate protocols using wholly
> separate algorithms. 

[suresh] "Common requirements" is not artificial. Such a document
draft-ford-behave-gen-01.txt already exists. As for consensus on adapting this
as a WG draft, I would certainly like to see a poll taken on the list sooner
than later. 

As for your comment about NATs implementing seperate protocols using separate
agortihms - No one is disputing the need for seperate drafts for TCP vs UDP.
However, your comment misses the point that NAT implementations have a big
piece of common stuff and some variations on top of that for TCP vs UDP
processing.

>                      There is also no requirement of any such document
> in the charter. 

[suresh] The charter states- "This working group proposes to generate
requirements documents and best current practices to enable NATs to function in
as deterministic a fashion as possible".  

>                 If some actually want to issue a common document, they
> should do so after we have published the other documents, as a summary.
> 
> I support immediate progress of the UDP document.
> 
[suresh] UDP document is not going to be used in isolation by NAT implementers.
behave-gen, behave-udp and behave-tcp are going to be used together. I see
little point in rushing the UDP draft in isolation. It would make no sense to
release the behave drafts without coordination or structure and duplicate
common material, worse, have conflicting comments across the drafts. 

> -- Christian Huitema

cheers,
suresh

---

From: Marc Manthey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 08:14:35 -0700 (PDT)

On May 15, 2005, at 4:26 PM, Pyda Srisuresh wrote:

I have strong objections to reverse the decision to go
ahead with separate documents.
sorry isnt this  what microsoft mostly do ?.

cheers

codewarrior@xxxxxxxxxx
--
"   In a world without walls or fences, who needs Windows and Gates ?  "
Les Enfants Terribles   -   www.let.de  -  www.cuseeme.de
cuseeme:// 207.44.156.3  CID 0  Max send.25   Max. Recieve.80

Attachment:
smime.p7s