Re: [Sip] RE: [BEHAVE] Re: ICE deployment data before LC for RFC

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

Suresh,

I would propose that you drop MMUSIC mailing listif responding to this 
as you appear to want to discuss the removal of a BEHAVE milestone, 
rather than ICE and its way forward. But I will leave it there to let 
the MMUSIC people see my response.

It seems most of the issues in this discussion is between, what I at 
least thought was a specific way of performing the hole punching rather 
than the general concept that I acknowledge has existed since the 
creation of NATs. I will drop these items an respond to few of them.

Pyda Srisuresh skrev:
> --- Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> There also has been discussion about if there should be multiple 
>> solutions etc. But, to my knowledge the consensus also there has been 
>> that one solution is the way to go.
>>
> [suresh] I have not been part of the discussion pertaining to the merit of
> multiple solutions vs single soultions. This may have been discussed in the
> context of SIP and NAT traversal. So, I cant comment on this.

Yes, that was in the context of ICE. As my email was about that.

> 
>> So Suresh, you and everyone else as participants in the IETF is 
>> responsible for what you call HOLE PUNCHING TECHNIQUES are not an WG 
>> item. 
> 
> [suresh] Magnus - I dont know what you are talking about. How do you mean I am
> responsible for why the HOLE PUNCHING TECHNIQUE draft is not a WG item. The
> ford-behave-app draft has been around for many years since the inception of
> BEHAVE. Last I checked, The application milestone is no longer on BEHVAE
> charter. I certainly am not responsible for removign the milestone.

This was written as reaction on how work gets done in the IETF. One or 
more proponents goes out and sell their idea so that enough people are 
interested to participate in the work on that idea. In cases the 
proponents are not succesful in getting traction for the idea it rarely 
goes anywhere. In the case of the ford-behave-app draft there has been 
no support for keeping the milestone or more important, do the work.


> [suresh] Magnus - I have not been part of the consensus for ICE. However, I do
> know ICE adapts the HOLE PUNCHING TECHNIQUES and the BCP recommendations
> identified in ford-behave-app draft. Yet, neither of the ICE drafts (UDP or the
> TCP version) refer the ford-behave-app draft or prior work on HOLE PUNCHING as
> normative reference. This iS WRONG. 
> 
> I believe, the ICE drafts should refer the prior work (kegel work on UDP hole
> punching, USENIX paper for TCP hole punching and ford-behave-app draft for
> application traversal design) on which the ICE work is based.
> 

I think you should review your sources here. The first version of 
ford-beahve-app was submitted february 2005. At that point STUN (RFC 
3489 had been published in almost 2 years (March 2003). The first 
individual version of ICE was submitted to IETF february 2003. I am not 
going to untangle this, but if you are going down this path: Please have 
you facts right.

I am not denying that work commonly builds up on others. And that it is 
common curtesy to reference such work. However, that is commonly done by 
an informative reference. Normative references are for things that you 
absolutely need to include to build interoperable implementations. 
Please do review IESG statement on references:

http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/iesg-statement-normative-informative-references.txt



> On the one hand, IETF (IESG) has been adamant about the standard level of the
> normative references for a proposes standard. Yet, it is ironic that when HOLE
> PUNCHING  is normative to the design of ICE, the IETF is not allowing the HOLE
> PUNCHING work to be standardized. 

Once more a missunderstanding about what it means to be a normative 
reference in an RFC.

> 
> Why is the IETF not allowing HOLE PUNCHING TECHNIQUES and P2P application
> traversal identified in draft-ford-behave-app draft to move forward as a BCP WG
> item?
> 

As stated before. There is a clear lack of interest in this document. I 
wished there wasn't. But the fact is that no-one except you have really 
argued for it, not even your co-authors. We can't publish a document 
where no-one reads and reviews it and stil claim that their exist 
consensus behind it.

Regards

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM/M
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone [phone]
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   [phone]
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave