IESG Secretary | 1 Feb 01:22 2012
Picon

Rescheduled BEHAVE WG Virtual Interim Meeting: Thursday, February 16, 7am PST

Due to a scheduling conflict, the BEHAVE audio conference interim 
meeting is being rescheduled.  The previously-scheduled
February 3 interim meeting is cancelled.

NEW DATE AND TIME: Thursday, February 16, 7am-8:30am Pacific Standard 
Time (San Francisco, GMT-08:00).

Agenda and audio conference details published at
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/behave/trac/wiki/WikiStart

Marc Petit-Huguenin | 2 Feb 18:40 2012
Picon

Fwd: I-D Action: draft-petithuguenin-behave-turn-uris-00.txt


We sat down over beers in Taipei (thanks Hadriel!) to resolve the differences
between the two TURN URIs drafts and agreed on common ground.  This new draft
merges the best of these two drafts and we are now submitting it to the BEHAVE
WG (where the original discussion about TURN URI took place) for consideration.

We would like to present this work at the next BEHAVE interim meeting or at
any other venue that the chairs would prefer.

The reference implementation has been updated and is available at the URL
indicated in the draft.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: I-D Action: draft-petithuguenin-behave-turn-uris-00.txt
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 09:35:53 -0800
From: internet-drafts <at> ietf.org
Reply-To: internet-drafts <at> ietf.org
To: i-d-announce <at> ietf.org

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

	Title           : Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Uniform Resource
Identifiers
	Author(s)       : Marc Petit-Huguenin
                          Suhas Nandakumar
                          Gonzalo Salgueiro
                          Paul E. Jones
	Filename        : draft-petithuguenin-behave-turn-uris-00.txt
	Pages           : 13
	Date            : 2012-02-02
(Continue reading)

The IESG | 6 Feb 16:03 2012
Picon

Last Call: <draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis-05.txt> (Analysis of Stateful 64 Translation) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Behavior Engineering for
Hindrance Avoidance WG (behave) to consider the following document:
- 'Analysis of Stateful 64 Translation'
  <draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis-05.txt> as an Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf <at> ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-02-20. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg <at> ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

   Due to specific problems, NAT-PT was deprecated by the IETF as a
   mechanism to perform IPv6-IPv4 translation.  Since then, new efforts
   have been undertaken within IETF to standardize alternative
   mechanisms to perform IPv6-IPv4 translation.  This document evaluates
   how the new stateful translation mechanisms avoid the problems that
   caused the IETF to deprecate NAT-PT.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis/

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(Continue reading)

Dan Wing | 16 Feb 16:08 2012
Picon

CGN NAT MIB slides for BEHAVE Interim meeting


-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Perreault [mailto:simon.perreault <at> viagenie.ca] 
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 6:52 AM
To: Dan Wing
Subject: Slides

Dan,

Here are a few slides for my presentation.

Simon
--

-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca

-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Perreault [mailto:simon.perreault <at> viagenie.ca] 
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 6:52 AM
To: Dan Wing
Subject: Slides

Dan,

Here are a few slides for my presentation.

(Continue reading)

S Moonesamy | 16 Feb 20:47 2012

APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis-05

I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer 
for this draft (for background on appsdir, please see 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate ).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 
you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document 
shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis-05
Title: Analysis of Stateful 64 Translation
Reviewer: S. Moonesamy
Review Date: February 16, 2012

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC.

This draft evaluates how the new stateful translation mechanisms 
avoid the problems that caused the IETF to deprecate NAT-PT.  It 
discusses about problems identified in RFC 4966.  There is an 
analysis about an application protocol (FTP) in Section 
2.2.  Applications are mention in several places.  I did not find any 
application issues.

Major issues:

None.

Minor issues:

In Section 2.2:

(Continue reading)

Dan Wing | 17 Feb 02:31 2012
Picon

BEHAVE interim meeting, webex, Friday, March 2

We ran over time for today's interim meeting and still missed two
presentations.  

This email announces another BEHAVE interim meeting, webex teleconferencing
only, on Friday, March 2, at 7am Pacific Standard Time.  Agenda, Webex, and
dialin details are at
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/behave/trac/wiki/WikiStart

We hope to have the two presentations that we missed on the agenda (assuming
the authors can attend), and hope to have updates from authors of
draft-perreault-opsawg-natmib-bis and
draft-penno-behave-rfc4787-5382-5508-bis.

-d

Dan Wing | 17 Feb 02:55 2012
Picon

slides from today's interim meeting

Slides from today's interim meeting are posted as Attachments at the bottom
of
  http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/behave/trac/wiki/WikiStart

These will move to some IETF Proceedings repository.  When that happens, I
will add a pointer on that Wiki page.

Thanks to everyone that presented and everyone that attended.  We ran 30
minutes late, but still did not get to all of our agenda items.

-d

mohamed.boucadair | 17 Feb 07:51 2012

Re: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis-05

Dear SM,

Thank you for your review.

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med 

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : S Moonesamy [mailto:sm+ietf <at> elandsys.com] 
> Envoyé : jeudi 16 février 2012 20:48
> À : apps-discuss <at> ietf.org; 
> draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis.all <at> tools.ietf.org
> Cc : behave <at> ietf.org
> Objet : APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis-05
> 
> I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer 
> for this draft (for background on appsdir, please see 
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsArea
> Directorate ).
> 
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 
> you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document 
> shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis-05
> Title: Analysis of Stateful 64 Translation
> Reviewer: S. Moonesamy
> Review Date: February 16, 2012
(Continue reading)

S Moonesamy | 17 Feb 08:57 2012

Re: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis-05

Hi Med,
At 22:51 16-02-2012, mohamed.boucadair <at> orange.com wrote:
>In some deployment it can be SPOF but in others no. This depends if 
>the a distributed NAT model is adopted, if NAT state synchronization 
>mechanisms are enabled, etc. Do we need to clarify this in the document?

It would help the reader if that could be clarified.

>The IPv4 address pool used by the NAT64 to service IPv6 hosts. 
>Several IPv6 hosts may share the same IPv4 address. Do you think 
>this need a clarification in the document?

I recommend a clarification as there is a proposal about shared address space.

>Sorry, but I don't understand this comment. Can you please clarify? Thanks.

If we are talking about the BEHAVE WG, IETF participants either know 
about it or can look it up.  If you say "which complies with BEHAVE 
NAT", a wider audience would not know what BEHAVE is.  It's easier to 
say "complies with NAT recommendations in [RFC4787][RFC5382]".

>I can do but IMHO the document does not introduce new security concerns, no?

I don't think so but I'll defer to the Security Directorate on this.

Thanks for the feedback.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy 
(Continue reading)

mohamed.boucadair | 17 Feb 10:15 2012

Re: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis-05

Re-,

Thank you for the clarifications. I updated the document accordingly.

Cheers,
Med 

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : S Moonesamy [mailto:sm+ietf <at> elandsys.com] 
> Envoyé : vendredi 17 février 2012 08:57
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP; apps-discuss <at> ietf.org; 
> draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis.all <at> tools.ietf.org
> Cc : behave <at> ietf.org
> Objet : RE: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis-05
> 
> Hi Med,
> At 22:51 16-02-2012, mohamed.boucadair <at> orange.com wrote:
> >In some deployment it can be SPOF but in others no. This depends if 
> >the a distributed NAT model is adopted, if NAT state synchronization 
> >mechanisms are enabled, etc. Do we need to clarify this in 
> the document?
> 
> It would help the reader if that could be clarified.
> 
> >The IPv4 address pool used by the NAT64 to service IPv6 hosts. 
> >Several IPv6 hosts may share the same IPv4 address. Do you think 
> >this need a clarification in the document?
> 
> I recommend a clarification as there is a proposal about 
> shared address space.
(Continue reading)


Gmane