Subject: [BEHAVE] FW: please publish draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis-04

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 11:10:41 -0700

FYI.

-d

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Wing [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 11:10 AM
To: 'David Harrington'; [email-masked]'
Cc: [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'
Subject: please publish draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis-04

BEHAVE's WGLC for draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis-04 has concluded, and we
request advancing the document to publication.  PROTO writeup is below.

-d

-----

   (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? 

document: draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis-04.txt
shepherd: Dan Wing, [email-masked]

          Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
Yes.

   (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

Yes, sufficient review has been performed.  

   (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization, or XML?

No concerns.

   (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
          and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he
          or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
          has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any
          event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
          that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
          concerns here.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.

No concerns.

There are no IPR disclosures against this document.

   (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
          represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
          others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
          agree with it?

This document analyzies how well BEHAVE's NAT64 documents resolve
the problems described in RFC4966 (which deprecated NAT-PT).  

Consensus is fairly solid.

   (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in
          separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
          entered into the ID Tracker.)

No significant conflict with this document has occurred.

   (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.)  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? 

No such reviews are needed.

          If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

Intended status:  Informational

   (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?  Are there normative references to documents that
          are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
          state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

Yes, references are split, and all appear good.  

   (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
          Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

This document does not need any IANA action.

   (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

Verified.

   (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Recent examples can be found in the
          "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
          announcement contains the following sections:

          Technical Summary
             Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
             and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
             an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
             or introduction.

   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.

          Working Group Summary
             Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
             For example, was there controversy about particular points
             or were there decisions where the consensus was
             particularly rough?

Nothing exciting happened.

          Document Quality
             Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
             significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
             implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
             merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
             e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
             conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
             there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
             what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
             Review, on what date was the request posted?

          Personnel
             Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
             Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
             experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
             in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.'

shepherd:  Dan Wing 
responsible AD:  David Harrington

   The Document Shepherd MUST send the Document Shepherd Write-Up to the
   Responsible Area Director and [email-masked] together with
   the request to publish the document.  The Document Shepherd SHOULD
   also send the entire Document Shepherd Write-Up to the working group
   mailing list.  If the Document Shepherd feels that information which
   may prove to be sensitive, may lead to possible appeals, or is
   personal needs to be written up, it SHOULD be sent in direct email to
   the Responsible Area Director, because the Document Shepherd Write-Up
   is published openly in the ID Tracker.  Question (1.f) of the
   Write-Up covers any material of this nature and specifies this more
   confidential handling.