Subject: [Ietf-behave] p2p-state as new milestone?

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 12:08:17 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from [email-masked])

The authors of draft-srisuresh-behave-p2p-state have asked us to adopt the
document to become a working group document.  We don't currently have a
milestone for such a work item, so a new milestone (and date) would need to
be created.

To adopt the document I would like some discussion on the list around this
document's applicability to the WG.  We will also need at least two WG
volunteers for ongoing technical review as the document progresses.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-srisuresh-behave-p2p-state-04.txt

-d

---

From: Pyda Srisuresh <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:24:55 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from [email-masked])

Dan,

Let me clarify on the applicability of the p2p-state draft to the WG. The
document provides the current state of NAT traversal techniques in use by P2P
applications. As such, this provides a background for the recommendations in
draft-ford-behave-app-04.txt, which is currently a candidate for the "protocol
design techniques for using the existing set of NAT traversal approaches"
milestone. For this reason, I requested for the p2p-state draft to be advanced
as informational RFC.

My read of the charer for this WG is that it is focussed on requirements and
BCP documents. So, initialy (a few months ago), I requested Magnus to review
this as independent submission, to which he readily agreed. The doucment was
sent for review on both behve and p2psip lists. The current rev of the draft
folds in all the comments received during that review. Later, Magnus clarified
that he believed that the draft indeed is within the WG charter and as such
should be progressed as WG document. Hence my request to consider this as WG
draft. I understand, you are aware of the events preceding the request. But, I
am sending this note for the benefit of the WG at large.

Thanks.

regards,
suresh

--- Dan Wing <dwing@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-behave mailing list
> Ietf-behave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-behave
>

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:52:22 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from [email-masked])

Speaking only for myself...

Dan,

Let me clarify on the applicability of the p2p-state draft to the WG. The
document provides the current state of NAT traversal techniques in use by 
P2P
applications. As such, this provides a background for the recommendations 
in
draft-ford-behave-app-04.txt, which is currently a candidate for the 
"protocol

design techniques for using the existing set of NAT traversal approaches"
milestone. For this reason, I requested for the p2p-state draft to be 
advanced

as informational RFC.

My read of the charer for this WG is that it is focussed on requirements 
and
BCP documents. So, initialy (a few months ago), I requested Magnus to 
review
this as independent submission, to which he readily agreed. The doucment 
was
sent for review on both behve and p2psip lists. The current rev of the 
draft
folds in all the comments received during that review. Later, Magnus 
clarified
that he believed that the draft indeed is within the WG charter and as 
such
should be progressed as WG document. Hence my request to consider this as 
WG
draft. I understand, you are aware of the events preceding the request. 
But, I

At the P2PSIP ad hoc in Montreal, my understanding was that the proposed 
P2PSIP charter points to BEHAVE for NAT traversal issues, so my conclusion 
from that understanding is that the draft is more likely to get community 
review in BEHAVE than outside BEHAVE, and the topic is closer to BEHAVE's 
scope than any other obvious working group.

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:34:52 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from [email-masked])

Hi, Dan,

The authors of draft-srisuresh-behave-p2p-state have asked us to adopt the
document to become a working group document.  We don't currently have a
milestone for such a work item, so a new milestone (and date) would need 
to

be created.

I should have also noted that I would be willing to serve as one of the 
technical reviewers. Sorry for omitting this from my previous posting.

(Oh, am I supposed to read e-mail past the first paragraph?)

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: "Francois Audet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 15:06:08 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from [email-masked])

It looks like the authors have significantly improved the draft from
version -03 to align with the other documents of the BEHAVE working
group,
in particular with draft-ietf-behave-nat-udp. 

I do believe that the document (which should probably be INFORMATIONAL)
has good information useful for the other documents in the BEHAVE
working group.

One minor note: the references need to be updated. For example, rev
draft-ietf-behave-nat-udp to -08.

I am willing to review as well.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-behave-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:ietf-behave-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Spencer Dawkins
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:32 PM
> To: ietf-behave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Ietf-behave] p2p-state as new milestone?
> 
> Hi, Dan,
> 
> 
> > The authors of draft-srisuresh-behave-p2p-state have asked 
> us to adopt 
> > the document to become a working group document.  We don't 
> currently 
> > have a milestone for such a work item, so a new milestone 
> (and date) 
> > would need to be created.
> >
> > To adopt the document I would like some discussion on the 
> list around 
> > this document's applicability to the WG.  We will also need 
> at least 
> > two WG volunteers for ongoing technical review as the 
> document progresses.
> >
> > 
> I should have also noted that I would be willing to serve as 
> one of the technical reviewers. Sorry for omitting this from 
> my previous posting.
>

---

From: "Brian Stucker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:17:21 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from [email-masked])

I would be willing to review the document, so there's your two.

Regards,
Brian 

> Audet, Francois (SC100:3055)
> Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 2:52 PM
> To: Spencer Dawkins; ietf-behave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> It looks like the authors have significantly improved the 
> draft from version -03 to align with the other documents of 
> the BEHAVE working group, in particular with 
> draft-ietf-behave-nat-udp. 
> 
> I do believe that the document (which should probably be 
> INFORMATIONAL) has good information useful for the other 
> documents in the BEHAVE working group.
> 
> One minor note: the references need to be updated. For 
> example, rev draft-ietf-behave-nat-udp to -08.
> 
> > [mailto:ietf-behave-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
> Of Spencer 
> > Dawkins
> > I should have also noted that I would be willing to serve as one of 
> > the technical reviewers. Sorry for omitting this from my previous 
> > posting.
> >

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:03:29 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from [email-masked])

Thanks, everyone.  We will adopt p2p-state as a new milestone, and last call
it pretty shortly.

-d