IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [BEHAVE] BEHAVE status update

Dave Thaler <dthaler@windows.microsoft.com> Tue, 24 February 2009 02:23 UTC

Return-Path: <dthaler@windows.microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BED553A67E7 for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:23:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.479
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.479 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.120, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R5figDi6hPZb for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:23:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (mail3.microsoft.com [131.107.115.214]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1806B28C27B for <behave@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:23:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tk5-exhub-c103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.88.96) by TK5-EXGWY-E803.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.99.4; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:23:19 -0800
Received: from TK5-EXMLT-W605V.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.18.79) by tk5-exhub-c103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.88.96) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.2.99.4; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:23:19 -0800
Received: from NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([fe80::75be:c82f:ae04:55bf]) by TK5-EXMLT-W605V.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.18.79]) with mapi; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:23:19 -0800
From: Dave Thaler <dthaler@windows.microsoft.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:23:16 -0800
Thread-Topic: [BEHAVE] BEHAVE status update
Thread-Index: AcmUz2dEGpqIGTRJSIujn6/TMnd6HQBVoCyQ
Message-ID: <E9CACA3D8417CE409FE3669AAE1E5A4F118EF867FB@NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
References: <0c6301c994b5$f9d7ca30$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <49A11943.5070205@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <49A11943.5070205@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: 'Behave WG' <behave@ietf.org>, "behave-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <behave-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] BEHAVE status update
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 02:23:10 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: behave-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:behave-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 1:22 AM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: 'Behave WG'; behave-chairs@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] BEHAVE status update
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> Thanks for the clarity. I do have a couple of questions:
>
> On 2009-02-22 19:22, Dan Wing wrote:
> > An update on some of BEHAVE's activities -- IPv4/IPv6 translation,
> TURN, and
> > TURN-TCP:
> >
> > IPv4/IPv6 Translation:
> >
> >    - Dave recently sent a Doodle poll to help prioritize documents
> >      to adopt.  However, as of Saturday night only 5 people have
> >      replied to this poll.
>
> I read it as being addressed very specifically to implementors
> and operators, which will cut down the response rate.
> If you want responses from more people, Q3 ("Have you or are
> you planning to deploy...?") would need to be phrased somewhat
> differently. Or add a Q4 such as "Do you see a clear operational
> requirement for...?".

Yes the questions were intentionally tailored to implementers, operators,
and end users who might be already using NAT-PT as an end-user.

I will remind folks of the note at the end of the poll email:
> If you care to provide additional information, then you can
> do so in email to the list in addition to the doodle.

In other words, the doodle is not intended to be limiting.
But there's enough questions there as is and the question like
"do you see a clear operational requirement for" isn't quite boolean
and I think is better judged from on-list discussion.  However,
I'm open to others views on that point.

> >      We will meet our milestone "Determine relative
> >      prioritization of the four translation cases" at the
> >      San Francisco BEHAVE meeting.
>
> I have the impression that we don't have a current analysis document
> about these four scenarios, and reaching a decision just on the basis
> of the paragraphs in the charter and a doodle poll seems a bit casual.
> Section 1.5 of draft-baker-behave-v4v6-framework-01 does discuss two
> cases, with placeholders for two others, but they don't seem to be
> quite identical to the cases in the charter. Have I missed a document?

Right now the doc you mention, and draft-arkko-townsley-coexistence-00.txt
both contain a subset of the scenarios and analysis.  It would be
great if there were a single doc, it were complete.

-Dave

> Thanks
>      Brian
> _______________________________________________
> Behave mailing list
> Behave@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email