Subject: [Ietf-behave] Agenda time IETF 61

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 11:43:09 -0800 (PST)

Jiri and are starting to think about putting together the agenda for the for
the next IETF meeting. Please email both of us know if think you might want
some agenda time. As always, we prefer to spend meeting time solving
problems we can't bring to resolution on this list.

Thanks, Cullen

PS.  I would prefer to see draft slides 24 hours before you present. I think
this could help the chairs sort out the material to be covered and to make
best use of meeting time.

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 11:44:32 -0800 (PST)

I am a bit late for IETF 61 so let's try for IETF 62 :-)

On 2/15/05 11:42 AM, "Cullen Jennings" <fluffy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> some agenda time. As always, we prefer to spend meeting time solving problems
> we can't bring to resolution on this list.
> 
> Thanks, Cullen
>

---

From: Pyda Srisuresh <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 06:28:36 -0800 (PST)

Cullen & Jiri,

A number of individual drafts relating to behave have been published. Would it
be appropriate to use a time slot in the agenda to poll interest in adapting
them as WG drafts? Thanks. Below are the individual drafts I am refering to.

draft-ford-behave-gen-00.txt
draft-ford-behave-top-00.txt
draft-ford-behave-app-00.txt
draft-sivakumar-behave-nat-tcp-req-00
draft-srisuresh-behave-p2p-state-00.txt

regards,
suresh

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

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

=====

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 09:37:41 -0800 (PST)

At 6:28 AM -0800 2/21/05, Pyda Srisuresh wrote:
A number of individual drafts relating to behave have been published. Would it
be appropriate to use a time slot in the agenda to poll interest in adapting
them as WG drafts? Thanks. Below are the individual drafts I am refering to.
draft-ford-behave-gen-00.txt
draft-ford-behave-top-00.txt
draft-ford-behave-app-00.txt
draft-sivakumar-behave-nat-tcp-req-00
draft-srisuresh-behave-p2p-state-00.txt
Fully agree. It is somewhat disappointing to see the amount of 
traffic on SCTP (given that it is not even in our charter) and nearly 
none on our charter items.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Qiaobing Xie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:40:31 -0800 (PST)

Yes, it would be nice if the group can take a look at the sctp-nat I-D and see if we should 
make it a WG draft. There is obviously interest in it. I will re-submit it once the block 
out is over. For the time being, it can be viewed at 
<http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-xie-tsvwg-sctp-nat-00.txt>.

regards,
-Qiaobing
Paul Hoffman wrote:

A number of individual drafts relating to behave have been published. 
Would it be appropriate to use a time slot in the agenda to poll interest in 
adapting them as WG drafts? Thanks. Below are the individual drafts I am 
refering to.

Fully agree. It is somewhat disappointing to see the amount of traffic 
on SCTP (given that it is not even in our charter) and nearly none on 
our charter items.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Randall Stewart <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:40:35 -0800 (PST)

Paul/Jon/Allision

You raise an interesting point... I just looked
over the charter for behave.. and it seems to
me the IESG missed adding a
XXX 05	Produce a BCP that defines SCTP behavioral requirements for NATs

To its charter... all the rest of the
verbage supports this item.. but like so many times
SCTP is not thought about... :-D
I think we need to get our chairs to approach the IESG to
fix this ommission.. I don't think its a question of expanding
the charter.. its just something that was missed IMO
R

Paul Hoffman wrote:

A number of individual drafts relating to behave have been published. 
Would it
be appropriate to use a time slot in the agenda to poll interest in 
adapting
them as WG drafts? Thanks. Below are the individual drafts I am 
refering to.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

--
Randall Stewart
ITD
803-345-0369 <or> 815-342-5222

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:25:37 -0800 (PST)

<with my chair hat on>

I think that SCTP was explicitly discussed at the time we did the charter.
My recollection was that we were trying hard to make the scope of this WG
small enough that it had a hope of accomplishing it's goals. Now my read of
the charter is that it does not rule out recommendations for NATs that come
up due to SCTP. However, there is definitely no milestones for SCTP. I would
be very hesitant to request any milestones for SCTP work until *after* we
have got the current milestone work off to IESG. It's not that I'm
forgetting about SCTP - it just a matter of prioritizing the work in an
order where we can get one chunk done then move on to the next chunk instead
of trying to boil the ocean of protocols.

I can't remember all the reasons others had for prioritizing in various
orders but I think some of the reasons that I had for putting the existing
things ahead of SCTP were: 1) it's not clear to me what applications use
SCTP that cross NATs; 2) it did not seem like it was currently causing huge
pain; 3) it will be more complicated that the UDP or TCP work and the
experience learned on those will help figure out SCTP

Cullen

---

From: Randall Stewart <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:05:19 -0800 (PST)

Cullen Jennings wrote:
<with my chair hat on>

I think that SCTP was explicitly discussed at the time we did the charter.
My recollection was that we were trying hard to make the scope of this WG
small enough that it had a hope of accomplishing it's goals. Now my read of
the charter is that it does not rule out recommendations for NATs that come
up due to SCTP. However, there is definitely no milestones for SCTP. I would
be very hesitant to request any milestones for SCTP work until *after* we
have got the current milestone work off to IESG. It's not that I'm
forgetting about SCTP - it just a matter of prioritizing the work in an
order where we can get one chunk done then move on to the next chunk instead
of trying to boil the ocean of protocols.
Hmmm... considering that SCTP is the only transport protocol the
IETF has standardized (TCP pre-dates the IETF)... I would have
thought it would not be part of the "ocean" of protocols... especially
since there are only 3 at the transport level.. maybe 4 if we include
DCCP.. At least its nice to know it was not completely overlooked :-D
I can't remember all the reasons others had for prioritizing in various
orders but I think some of the reasons that I had for putting the existing
things ahead of SCTP were: 1) it's not clear to me what applications use
SCTP that cross NATs; 2) it did not seem like it was currently causing huge
pain; 3) it will be more complicated that the UDP or TCP work and the
experience learned on those will help figure out SCTP
Hmm.. as long as one does not try to do the multi-homing thing across
NAT then I don't think SCTP is any more hard then TCP or UDP. Its only
when one trys to capture the m-homing that one gets into a sea
of trouble...
As to priority.. I understand.. you must try to winnow the work
so it gets done... only thing in favor of getting something out
there on SCTP is there seems to be only one company, as yet, that
has SCTP in NAT (Q refered to them earlier.. but they remain
anonomous at his request)... this then gives the IETF an opening
to figure out the RIGHT thing to do and get the implementors to
do it that way instead of add-hock so we are writting documents
as to how things are already working vs how things aught to be
working...
But.... as I said... I understand.. if thats not a priority thats
fine.. we can pick up the work later.. but I think Q and I will
continue to work on the draft and get it closer to capturing
all the issues (forgoing m-homing however)..
R

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:13:50 -0800 (PST)

Er, maybe my last comment was misinterpreted. I'm fine with SCTP 
being *one* of the many topics this WG covers, but having much more 
discussion about the drafts that cover the NAT interactions with 
widely-deployed protocols is a much higher concern for many of us.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:37:50 -0800 (PST)

> DCCP

Ok, Ok, I agree, it's hardly an ocean :-)  Perhaps a handful of small
streams would be a better analogy. The streams are of course complete with
log jams, waterfalls, water diversion projects, industrial waste sites, and
plans to make bypasses for high-speed salmon.

> all the issues (forgoing m-homing however)..

I'd never discourage anyone from pursing useful work. And it's not that SCTP
could never fit into behave, it could,  we just need to finish some other
stuff first. Glad to see people thinking about the future but also anything
you can do to accelerate the other stuff is good too.

Cullen