Re: [BEHAVE] BEHAVE status update

Brian E Carpenter <> Sun, 22 February 2009 09:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 170FC28C188 for <>; Sun, 22 Feb 2009 01:22:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n-kVrj+TY7nF for <>; Sun, 22 Feb 2009 01:22:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0350428C0E6 for <>; Sun, 22 Feb 2009 01:21:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 11so1032493tim.25 for <>; Sun, 22 Feb 2009 01:22:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=o+Nkz+i/FcuHztmF3V8N0TifOBXpQcvvsnlsk06Xjvw=; b=A4PuYV1PwFMCIfVXHp4UroJK3gMXiqG0yJYGFmp8DJndJ9+226PZBgb0TilQ6gXv+B hwa57wMP2cAHcLYE9ul3Oq4+vpdW0kr2Y1XraVg6gQr91lg5GXetqO9CbWCGdw2yCPJU VNBLIXy8FYmyTbWlMPslu4fD6qpl9dOknJK/g=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=We6rRRN4lf9jE/o/zeHOd4+QdHA0qSAY7pbW3d1CRLUJ4bIlRAWVee7RrHkrcGuCnT umHWFGsB6T4iU1wUwxvHWtc84iOAfS//DEMdjRGQuuiarmt0xyqPgPeZXMW6pwRgfjQm jNHdlwxDv4H574pbjPSm/yDA5ZDWCTs5QoNKk=
Received: by with SMTP id 15mr3976759tic.43.1235294534452; Sun, 22 Feb 2009 01:22:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ? ( []) by with ESMTPS id 22sm3857891tim.4.2009. (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 22 Feb 2009 01:22:13 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:22:11 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dan Wing <>
References: <0c6301c994b5$f9d7ca30$>
In-Reply-To: <0c6301c994b5$f9d7ca30$>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 'Behave WG' <>,
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] BEHAVE status update
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:22:01 -0000

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
> 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...?".

>      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?