Subject: [Ietf-behave] Adoption of WG documents

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:32:04 -0800 (PST)

The chairs and ADs are in the process of updating the charter to include the
media relay work. At the last meeting we discussed the topic of adopting the
following drafts as working group drafts:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rosenberg-midcom-turn-08.txt

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-camarillo-midcom-turn-ipv6-00.txt

There was strong support in the room for using these as the starting point
for this work. If anyone on the list has objections, please let us know,
otherwise I will declare consensus on adopting them. Please let us know by
February 19.

Thanks, Cullen & Jiri

---

From: Pyda Srisuresh <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 10:52:24 -0800 (PST)

Cullen,
Back in 11/05, I requested to initiate the procedure to adapt the following as 
WG documents and consider adding a related draft to the milestones.
    draft-srisuresh-behave-nat-icmp-00.txt
    draft-ford-behave-app-01.txt

Both these drafts have a matching WG milestones. I havent heard anything as yet 
on these. It seems a bit premature to talk about revising the chapter and 
milestones before addressing what is already on the WG plate. 
If there is large support to add the items below, that is fine. However, before 
revising the charter and milestones, I would suggest getting feedback from 
folks on what else they would like to see added to the charter and milestones.

Thanks.

regards,
suresh 

----- Original Message ----
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Behave <ietf-behave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 4:31:57 PM
Subject: [Ietf-behave] Adoption of WG documents

Thanks, Cullen & Jiri

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

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:37:56 -0800 (PST)

On 2/20/06 10:52 AM, "Pyda Srisuresh" <srisuresh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Both these drafts have a matching WG milestones. I havent heard anything as
> yet on these. It seems a bit premature to talk about revising the chapter and
> If there is large support to add the items below, that is fine. However,
> before revising the charter and milestones, I would suggest getting feedback
> from folks on what else they would like to see added to the charter and
> milestones.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> regards,
> suresh 

Hi, 

Few separate issues here.

On the ford-behave-app. I was sort of working on the assumption that this
had good odds of becoming a WG draft but it has had very little "air time"
or comments yet. Most the WG has not read it. This is partially because the
UDP and TCP stuff is sequenced ahead of it and the UDP took so long. I would
hope we would end up with agenda time this at the upcoming meeting.

On the ICMP, the stuff in this document that people seemed willing to agree
to got included into the UDP document. I think that several people felt that
much of the stuff seemed to go well beyond the minimal changes that the WG
wanted to specify and move into the advice on how to build a NAT instead of
the minimal definitions we need to make applications that can work through
NATs. 

On the topic of would we do any relay work before everything else was done,
well at the last meeting and on the list there has been many people willing
to work on that while there has been fairly limited comment on the
application advice stuff. I would like to see both get moving if possible.

Cullen

---

From: Pyda Srisuresh <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 18:33:54 -0800 (PST)

> hope we would end up with agenda time this at the upcoming meeting.
[suresh] There is a good likelihood the authors may not be present at the next
WG meeting. I doubt, if this will be presented in the WG meeting. I was hoping
the draft can become a WG document without it having to be presented in a WG
meeting. What is the procedure to get air time/comments on the draft to turn
this into a WG draft? Can you intiate the process?

> the minimal definitions we need to make applications that can work through

[suresh] It is true that the UDP draft carried ICMP stuff in some cases. But,
the UDP draft is not a replacement for ICMP recommendations. Now that the UDP
draft seems to have gone past IESG approval, we are working on a revised rev of
the ICMP draft. Can we have a discussion in the WG on whether or not to adapt
the revised draft as WG document? (or) are you saying that you propose to
abandon the milestone for "ICMP recomemndations draft" altogether as part of
the "revised milestones"?

> application advice stuff. I would like to see both get moving if possible.
[suresh] If you are going to expand the charter and add milestones to include
drafts on TURN, it makes sense to seek  wider input from the list. It is not
fair to do this without reviewing the several independent drafts (within the
perview of the current WG charter, IMHO) that have been languishing without
being considered as WG milestones. I know, I have a few that have been
collecting dust. Why is it more important to add TURN drafts as milestones than
to review the drafts already out there and consider their validity for
milestones. I would like to either see the independent drafts adapted as WG
milestones (or) be told as being out of the scope of the WG charter. 

regards,
suresh

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 08:50:58 -0800 (PST)

At the last meeting, we had a very large number of people request we add
theses as WG documents. I have had a very small number of people express
concerns around doing this. Mostly the concerns have centered on "what about
other work". The other work is largely orthogonal to the TURN work and being
done by different people so I don't expect TURN to have any impact on the
schedule of the other work. The charter changes are expected to happen.

Because of this, I have requested the authors of the two documents below to
submit them as WG items. I don't know if this will happen in time for the
next meeting or not but we will see.

I would like to point out that by doing this, we are just saying some people
in the WG will work on theses and we will use them as a starting point. It's
not like I am requesting publication of these - if anyone things these
documents are the wrong path forward, there is still plenty of time to
comment on that. 

Cullen