Subject: [Ietf-behave] Draft Agenda for IETF 64 take 2

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:49:41 -0800 (PST)

Behavior Engineering for Hindrance Avoidance (behave) - IETF 64

Chairs:
      J Kuthan <jiri@xxxxxxxxx>
      Cullen Jennings <fluffy@xxxxxxxxx>

TUESDAY, November 8, 2005, 1510-1710 in Salon C
================================================

Update & Agenda Bash (5 min)

TCP -  Saikat Guha  (15 min)
       draft-hoffman-behave-tcp-03
       http://www1.tools.ietf.org/wg/behave/draft-hoffman-behave-tcp-03.txt

TCP -  Kaushik Biswas (15 min)
       draft-sivakumar-behave-nat-tcp-req-02
      www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sivakumar-behave-nat-tcp-req-02.txt

How to finish TCP - Everyone (20 min)

STUN - Jonathan Rosenberg (14 min)
       http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/ietf-behave/msg01001.html
       www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-behave-rfc3489bis-02.txt

Media Relays - Chairs (1 min)

TURN - Jonathan Rosenberg (10 min)
       www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rosenberg-midcom-turn-08.txt

TURN & IPv6 - Gonzalo Camarillo (10 min) (time permitting)
       www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-camarillo-midcom-turn-ipv6-00.txt

UDP Tunnel - Xiangyang Wu (10 min) (time permitting)
       http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wu-behave-udp-tunnel-01.txt

Updating Milestones & Charter - Chairs (10 min)
       This item will start at least 15 minutes before the end
       of the session and previous things may get cut off.

SCTP - Michael Tuexen (10 min) (time permitting)
       draft-tuexen-sctp-udp-encaps-00
       www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tuexen-sctp-udp-encaps-00.txt
       draft-stewart-behave-sctpnat-01
       www1.tools.ietf.org/wg/behave/draft-stewart-behave-sctpnat-01.txt

Revision #2 of Agenda

---

From: Pyda Srisuresh <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:25:18 -0800 (PST)

>        of the session and previous things may get cut off.

For those of us, who wont be able to attend the IETF, can you expand on what
you propose to cover here? Is this eliminating/adding new milestones (or)
updating the target dates for the existing milestones? In case of the former,
woudl appreciate some elaboration on this on the list. Thanks.

cheers,
suresh

--- Cullen Jennings <fluffy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 15:20:57 -0800 (PST)

> woudl appreciate some elaboration on this on the list. Thanks.

Certainly. Also, anything in the meeting would definitely come to the list
to get ratified. 

It is two things - One is easy. We need to move the dates on all our
milestones. I'd like to get input on that.

The second thing is harder. The 1 minute "Media Relays" section on the
agenda is for the chairs to point out that media relays are not in the
charter. We then have 3 people talking about media relay issues. At the end
of that, I would like some discussion about media relays and the charter. I
hope to get some input that might be useful in the ADs thinking about
charter changes to add the media relay work.

The media relay work is needed. There is a lot of agreement on that. It's
hard to think of a WG other than behave that has better expertise to review
the drafts. I would like to get input on if there is people in the WG
willing to put work into media relay. I would not want to significantly
impact any of our other key milestones.

Cullen (not as chair)

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 15:35:20 -0800 (PST)

On 10/31/05 6:20 PM, "Cullen Jennings" <fluffy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> the drafts. 

I don't quite see that.  Isn't media relaying a voice application issue
rather than a NAT behavior issue?

Melinda

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:39:47 -0800 (PST)

Relays are not specific to voice. I view work on relays as a natural 
extension of the work we're already doing on STUN.

-Jonathan R.

Melinda Shore wrote:

I don't quite see that.  Isn't media relaying a voice application issue
rather than a NAT behavior issue?
Melinda
_______________________________________________
Ietf-behave mailing list
Ietf-behave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-behave
--
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Director, Service Provider VoIP Architecture   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
jdrosen@xxxxxxxxx                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.com

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 04:06:28 -0800 (PST)

On 10/31/05 9:39 PM, "Jonathan Rosenberg" <jdrosen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Relays are not specific to voice.

They're really not a NAT issue - to the extent that they are it's
because they're a mechanism to avoid NATs/firewalls.  They are
completely different technology, however.  I really see this
work as being quite far outside the scope of the existing behave working
group.  And aside from SIPPING, which is a somewhat different case, the
IETF does not treat working groups as pools of experts chartered to work
in some broad area.  I think having the behave working group standardize
TURN would be a mistake on both process and technical grounds, although
certainly not the worst mistake the IETF has ever made.

Melinda

---

From: Pyda Srisuresh <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 08:33:15 -0800 (PST)

Cullen did say that the chairs were going to comment that media relays are
outside the scope of the WG charter. Sounds like, everyone is in agreement that
media relays are clearly outside the scope of the current WG charter.

As for media tunnels being a natural extension to the WG charter, I dont see
how that is. As Melinda said, I do agree, relay tunnels is a new technology 
outside NAT BEHAVE work and I donot believe should be padded on top of Behave
charter.

Besides, there are already several individual drafts that fall within the WG
charter. I woudl much rather see the energy of the WG spent on determining
which of the drafts should be accepted as WG drafts and what new milestones
should be added. As a WG, we have much mork left to do still. We donot yet have
any drafts that cleared WG last call or reached the IESG. IMHO, it is just too
early to revise the WG charter at this point in my opinion.

If there are substantial number of folks who believe that media tunneling
technology should proceed forward right away, why not have a Bof and create a
seperate WG to address that.

My 2c. Thanks.

regards,
suresh

---

From: Pyda Srisuresh <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 09:12:43 -0800 (PST)

> How to finish TCP - Everyone (20 min)

Cullen - As I mentioned earlier, I wont be at the WG meeting. Some of my
co-authors will also be not at the meeting. Frankly, I have no idea what this
entails. Can we discuss this on the list first? DO you have some suggestions by
which you wish to address this? I do not see substantial differences between
the two TCP drafts. 

Saikat or Paul - As co-authors of one of the TCP drafts, can you comment your
thoughts on this? What do you see as substantial differences and How do you
like to see them resolved? Thanks.

regards,
suresh

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 11:27:32 -0800 (PST)

> rather than a NAT behavior issue?

It's definitely a topic that needs discussion. BEHAVE does deal with things
applications need to do in an environment with BEHAVE compliant NATs.

PS (I had on my todo list for today to send you a pointer to this thread but
I see you found it :-)

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 11:30:09 -0800 (PST)

> certainly not the worst mistake the IETF has ever made.

Well agree that some charter would need to be change or it would be a
process problem. However, what I am really interested in at this point is
the discussion on the technical grounds of where it makes sense to do this
work.

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 11:42:16 -0800 (PST)

> outside NAT BEHAVE work and I donot believe should be padded on top of Behave

Ok, good input. Can you add input on where this work should be done or how
we would decide where to do it?

> should be added. As a WG, we have much mork left to do still.

Prioritizing and sequencing the work in the WG is definitely critical. I'm
am always looking for input on that. As you point out, unless we are
finishing some stuff, any discussion of adding more task is meaningless.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 13:01:37 -0800 (PST)

> applications need to do in an environment with BEHAVE compliant NATs.

Sure, but it seems to me that in terms of the behavior of
the relaying protocol and how it's actually deployed, the
behavior of the NAT itself is pretty much orthogonal
(apologies if I'm misunderstanding something about TURN).
In that sense I suspect that TURN is topically closer to ICE and
perhaps SIPPING than it is to BEHAVE.  That is to say, there's
not that much in BEHAVE that affects decisions that need to be
made about TURN, but there's probably quite a bit in ICE/
SIPPING that affects decisions that need to be made about TURN.

Melinda

---

From: Pyda Srisuresh <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 14:41:38 -0800 (PST)

> we would decide where to do it?

[suresh] ICE is currently being pursued in MMUSIC. Relay tunneling to traverse
NATs fall under the same category, I believe. Tunnel endpoints incorporate ALG
function to traverse NATs in this new relay tunnelign work, right. Perhaps
mmusic may be a good WG to take on this work. Alternately, the combination of
TURN, ICE and the new relay tunneling could be pursued in a new NAT-Traversal
WG.

> finishing some stuff, any discussion of adding more task is meaningless.

[suresh] Right. Given that we have a lot of work left to do in this WG based on
the current charter, why expand the charter, take on additional items and add
distraction? 

cheers,
suresh