Re: [BEHAVE] Closing the behave WG

I'm also in favor of rechartering due to the same reason mentioned by Reinaldo, that is, there is still a lot of very important work to be done in this area. 

Since CGNs are usually deployed in ISP networks or large enterprise networks, rather than in home networks, and these devices usually carry a large volume of traffic and users, high availability and load-balancing are much desirable features for most CGN operators. Although proprietary solutions are available to some extent, vendor lock-in and simultaneous failure due to the same bug are two side-effects with such proprietary solutions, which are not much acceptable to some operators. Hence I do suggest the WG could reconsider these two important features for CGNs if/when rechartering.

Best regards,
Xiaohu

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: behave-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:behave-bounces@ietf.org] 代表
> Reinaldo Penno
> 发送时间: 2011年8月4日 15:58
> 收件人: David Harrington; behave@ietf.org
> 主题: Re: [BEHAVE] Closing the behave WG
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/3/11 5:12 PM, "David Harrington" <ietfdbh@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > As Responsible Area Director, I have received a request from the
> > behave WG chairs to consider closing the behave working group, rather
> > than rechartering to do additional work.
> >
> 
> I vote for rechartering. There is very important work to be done in this
> area, specially given the CGN traction in the market. I would like to see at
> least the following drafts published.
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sivakumar-behave-nat-logging-02
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-penno-behave-rfc4787-5382-5508-bis-00
> 
> > The chairs and the IESG agree that closing the WG after completing the
> > current milestones would be a good thing, to signal that the chartered
> > behave work items supporting transition to IPv6 have been completed.
> 
> I understand BEHAVE have been around for a while and if it is taking a lot
> of the chairs' time maybe we could consider changing the chairs for the next
> rechartering.
> 
> >
> > During ietf81, the chairs discussed with the working group the
> > possible closing of the working group. Additional work, such as those
> > drafts identified in the chairs' slides, can be proposed for
> > completion in existing working groups (or in new working groups).
> > None
> > of this would be automatic; the proponents would need to convince an
> > existing WG to adopt their draft, or would need to convince the IESG a
> > new working group is justified using the normal methods for requesting
> > a new working group. The behave chairs have agreed to serve as
> > technical advisors to working groups that take on such work, if
> > needed.
> >
> > In my opinion, the sense of the room was to support this closure.
> >
> > As Responsible area director, I plan to make a decision on WG closure
> > in the next few weeks, and would like to give the WG mailing list
> > members a chance to provide feedback on this proposed closure. Please
> > send substantive comments to the
> > behave@ietf.org mailing list by 2011-08-15, with the above Subject
> > line.
> >
> > David Harrington
> > Director, IETF Transport Area
> > ietfdbh@comcast.net (preferred for ietf)
> > dbharrington@huaweisymantec.com
> > +1 603 828 1401 (cell)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Behave mailing list
> > Behave@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Behave mailing list
> Behave@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave