[09:21:55] --- saikat has joined
[11:51:52] --- alfredh has joined
[12:00:35] <saikat> Hello. Are you at ietf? I can't seem to connect to the audio stream. (was able to about half an hour ago, just not anymore)
[12:01:15] <alfredh> hello
[12:01:20] --- csp has joined
[12:01:22] --- Jabber-Wile has joined
[12:01:28] --- dumdidum has joined
[12:01:37] <alfredh> the local audio stream is working
[12:01:54] --- sakuma.macx has joined
[12:02:03] --- csp has left
[12:03:13] <saikat> ok. using the 'local' server. working now. thanks.
[12:04:11] --- lemmakin has joined
[12:04:15] --- magnus has joined
[12:05:40] --- florent.parent@gmail.com has joined
[12:05:40] --- florent.parent@gmail.com has left: Lost connection
[12:06:27] --- cullenfluffyjennings@gmail.com has joined
[12:06:39] --- florent.parent@gmail.com has joined
[12:06:42] --- ericc has joined
[12:09:26] --- lemmakin has left
[12:11:52] --- bless has joined
[12:14:24] --- lemmakin has joined
[12:15:03] --- bless has left
[12:17:29] --- rolandb has joined
[12:20:11] --- eburger has joined
[12:20:37] --- BruceLowekamp has joined
[12:21:32] <eburger> Is there a Jabber scribe?
[12:21:47] --- florent.parent@gmail.com has left
[12:23:49] <magnus> No, not really. Do you want where in the agenda we are?
[12:24:12] <magnus> We are currently discussing pre-header for STUNbis
[12:25:18] --- dumdidum has left: Replaced by new connection
[12:25:44] --- dumdidum has joined
[12:30:09] --- magnus has left
[12:36:10] --- magnus has joined
[12:36:17] --- bhoeneis has joined
[12:36:37] <magnus> New structure for message type.
[12:47:16] <saikat> /wave
[12:48:34] <BruceLowekamp> I'm next to the mic and can relay
[12:49:30] <saikat> ok thanks
[12:51:14] <saikat> Host requirements says returning icmp error is SHOULD. Security section addresses there may be reasons to not send.
[12:51:24] <saikat> (rfc 1122)
[12:52:06] --- magnus has left
[12:53:28] --- csp has joined
[12:53:39] <saikat> How does a MAY affect IAB(or IESG) review etc.
[12:54:52] <saikat> It would be "compliant" with BEHAVE-TCP spec, but not "fully compliant".
[12:57:28] --- enrico has joined
[12:57:28] --- alfredh has left
[12:57:59] <saikat> ICMP port unreachable in RFC 11232 is supposed to be equivalent to transport level RST
[13:00:34] --- magnus has joined
[13:00:42] --- eburger has left
[13:12:57] <saikat> Additional questions (for when it may be appropriate to ask them) as a behave participant: - Which one of these requirements are _necessary_ for applications to perform correctly today? - Which one of these _fundamentally affect correctness_ of future applications? - Which ones are _optimizations_ (e.g. REQ-3) and may be considered subject for removal?
[13:15:54] --- dumdidum has left: Replaced by new connection
[13:16:56] --- dumdidum has joined
[13:18:25] --- sakuma.macx has left
[13:19:13] <saikat> Clarification: the question was not about the ICMP protocol but rather the specific requirements in the draft.
[13:20:13] --- csp has left: Replaced by new connection
[13:20:23] --- rolandb has left
[13:25:11] --- Jabber-Wile has left
[13:32:52] <cullenfluffyjennings@gmail.com> So my understanding is we go with SHOULD forward and if we do forward MUST translate. And the reason one might not od the SHOULD is becuase of specific security concerns
[13:33:19] <saikat> /agreed
[13:36:10] <cullenfluffyjennings@gmail.com> So summary of Lars, Greg, Magnus, Cullen on what doc says about should - We say that the reasons you might not want to do this SHOULD is because you were trying to meet certian firewall security polices defined elsewhere
[13:36:48] --- cullenfluffyjennings@gmail.com has left
[13:52:04] --- cullenfluffyjennings@gmail.com has joined
[13:53:34] <saikat> Cullen: about your last jabber comment, as long as the SHOULD NOT case is described in the document and implementers know what they are giving up by going with _should not_ and are fine with it, then _should_ makes sense.
[13:55:29] <cullenfluffyjennings@gmail.com> ok - that makes sense - I think people just want advice on when it might be aproperate to violate the SHOULD
[13:59:33] <cullenfluffyjennings@gmail.com> Lars pointed out that error 13 may get lost even if it is sent
[13:59:48] <cullenfluffyjennings@gmail.com> Dan said we will need to add text to say why this is a SHOULD
[14:04:35] --- dumdidum has left
[14:05:59] --- alfredh has joined
[14:14:58] --- nm has joined
[14:19:38] --- dumdidum has joined
[14:22:57] --- enrico has left
[14:24:27] --- sakuma.macx has joined
[14:25:23] <alfredh> what was the consensus on NAT Binding Discovery ?
[14:27:09] <BruceLowekamp> it was adopted
[14:27:18] <alfredh> ok thanks
[14:32:05] --- lemmakin has left
[14:32:28] --- magnus has left
[14:37:43] --- BruceLowekamp has left
[14:42:45] --- ericc has left: Computer went to sleep
[14:44:47] --- nm has left
[14:44:51] --- saikat has left
[14:46:12] --- bhoeneis has left
[14:46:46] --- sakuma.macx has left
[14:51:30] --- dumdidum has left
[14:55:09] --- cullenfluffyjennings@gmail.com has left
[14:56:22] --- frank has joined
[14:56:40] --- frank has left
[15:02:16] --- alfredh has left
[17:11:14] --- ysuzuki has joined
[17:11:55] --- ysuzuki has left