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

From: "Francois Audet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 11:57:35 -0700 (PDT)

> At 11:13 AM -0700 5/9/05, Senthil Sivakumar \(ssenthil\) wrote:
> >A lot of text in this document is generic to both TCP and UDP but
> >the applicability states
> >
> >"This document only covers the UDP Unicast aspects of NAT
> >traversal and does not cover TCP, IPSEC, or other protocols.
> 
> There is no mismatch there. In the areas I pointed out, where it says 
> "UDP" it actually covers any IP-based protocol. Thus, it is better to 
> keep those parts generic.
> 
> >   Since the document is for UDP only, packet inspection below the
> >UDP layer (including RTP) is also out-of-scope."
> 
> There is no mismatch there either. I don't think that the current UDP 
> requirements draft talks about UDP packet inspection except to say 
> "don't do that".
> 
> >We felt this while writing the TCP behavior draft where we had to
> >refer to the UDP draft for generic issues.
> 
> Right.
> 
> >   The common requirements should be addressed in a seperate
> >document, that will make both the TCP and UDP requirements concise 
> >and should not be interleaved in this UDP requirements draft.
> 
> That's one option. Another is to make the two drafts parallel, 
> pointing out where they differ due to specific differences between 
> UDP and TCP.

Agree. That decision (to have two parrallel drafts) was already made.

---

From: Pyda Srisuresh <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 19:22:33 -0700 (PDT)

<... stuff deleted>
> Agree. That decision (to have two parrallel drafts) was already made

[suresh] When was this decision made? This was neither reviewed nor decided
upon on the list. On the contrary, we talked explicitly about moving the
transport independent stuff to the behave-gen draft in the Minneapolis meeting.
The sivakumar-behave-nat-tcp-02 draft had excised all the transport independent
generic stuff and kept just the transport specific stuff in the draft. In
several of the subsequent e-mail threads where we discussed fragmentations,
ICMP errors and other generic stuff, we talked about moving the generic stuff
to the behave-gen draft. SO, it is a total surprise for me to hear that a
decision was made to have parallel drafts do their own thing with generic stuff
in parallel. That could be a disater for the implementers trying to make sense
of the BCPs. 

I sent an e-mail to the list with comments on the previous rev of the
behave-udp draft on 03/13/05. My comments from that e-mail still stand for the
new rev of the draft. The comments esentially centered around using common
terminology and refering transport independent stuff in behave-gen draft. I did
not receive any responses from the authors to those comments.

I believe, this is a serious and important decision for the working group, not
to be taken lightly. I would humbly suggest the working group to consider
having a single draft that covers transport independent behave requirements. 
   
The newer rev of behave-gen draft (draft-ford-behave-behave-gen-01.txt) covers
all the generic stuff that has been discussed on the list and should be
available on the IETF archives anytime soon (It was submitted on 05/08). 

cheers,
suresh

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 17:28:56 -0700 (PDT)

On 5/9/05 7:22 PM, "Pyda Srisuresh" <srisuresh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> upon on the list.

This was discussed on the list before the BOF. It was discussed in the BOF.
It was discussed by ADs and reviewed by IAB and IESG in forming charter. It
has been pointed out to you in email from me. It is shown in the milestone
section of the Charter page.

If there is anything I can do to make it clear I'm glad to do it. If you
would like to have another phone call around the reasoning that went into
that decision, I am glad to set up a conference call for you and anyone else
that cares to join.

I'm not sure what else to do.

Cullen with my chair hat on.

---

From: Bryan Ford <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 07:01:52 -0700 (PDT)

I likewise do not remember any such decision being made, or even discussed on 
the list.  If you're referring to some decision made "somewhere up high in 
the chain of command" at the very formation of this WG, as you seem to 
suggest, then that decision was presumably made before any actual text was on 
the table and before any of the technical issues had been explored in depth.

I do remember seeing a bit of discussion long ago of whether to have two 
documents (TCP and UDP) or just one big combined document, but _nobody_ here 
is suggesting just one big document at this point.  The issue here, now, is 
whether to split the (very considerable) common portions of the TCP and UDP 
docs out into a common, transport-neutral doc.  The issue is not one document 
versus two, but two documents versus three.

At the formation of the WG, it probably wasn't obvious that there would be a 
lot of material common to TCP and UDP, because that material hadn't been 
written yet.  Now that it's been written, it's become very clear that there 
is a great deal of common technical requirements, and it would be a 
structural and readability disaster to duplicate that material across the 
documents or litter them with ad hoc, ambiguous cross-references.  Given 
this, it seems highly appropriate to revisit the original decisions on 
document organization that were made at the formation of the WG.

Cheers,
Bryan

On Tuesday 10 May 2005 20:28, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> > [suresh] When was this decision made? This was neither reviewed nor
> > decided upon on the list.
>
> that decision, I am glad to set up a conference call for you and anyone
> else that cares to join.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-behave mailing list
> Ietf-behave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-behave