Subject: [Int-area] Request to advance draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis-04.txt

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 23:43:38 -0500

Dear Internet ADs,
  The chairs of the intarea working group, on behalf of the working
group, request that the following document be published as a Proposed
Standard.

Title : Analysis of Solution Candidates to Reveal a Host Identifier
(HOST_ID) in Shared Address Deployments
Draft name: draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis-04.txt

Writeup
=======

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title
page header?

Informational. This document does not define any protocols. It provides
an analysis of multiple solutions for identifying a host when it uses an
IP address that is shared among multiple subscribers behind a Carrier
Grade NAT. Hence we believe that an Informational document is appropriate.

(2) 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:

This document analyzes a set of solution candidates to mitigate some of
the issues encountered when address sharing is used.  In particular,
this document focuses on means to reveal a host identifier (HOST_ID)
when a Carrier Grade NAT (CGN) or application proxies are involved in
the path.  This host identifier must be unique to each host under the
same shared IP address.

Working Group Summary:

The working group had active discussion on the draft and the current
text of the draft is representative of the consensus of the working
group. In particular, as a result of WG consensus, this version of the
draft does not make any recommendations as to a preferred solution among
those analyzed.

Document Quality:

The document has received adequate review. The Document Shepherd has no
concerns about the depth or breadth of these reviews. This document does
not define a protocol. Hence there are no implementations of this document.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Suresh Krishnan is the document shepherd. Brian Haberman is the
responsible AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The document shepherd has reviewed the draft and finds that it is ready
to advance to the IESG. All issues that were raised in the working group
last calls have been addressed.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No. The document shepherd has no such concerns.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took
place.

Yes. I think the document could benefit from further review from people
with Security and Privacy expertise.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has 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.

There is a general concern with the document that has been raised
several times over the progress of the document through the WG.
Specifically, there are several people who believe that deploying IPv6
would be a much better solution that any described in this document.
While that is true, the fact remains that there are existing deployments
of shared IPv4 addresses that could benefit from the analysis provided
in the draft.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No.

(9) 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?

The WG consensus behind this document has been pretty stable but not
very strong. In particular, the WG consensus flipped completely at one
point in the process to not include a recommendation in the draft. Prior
consensus was to include a recommendation. This happened between
versions -02 and -03.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No errors were found on the ID nits check. There are newer versions of
some of the drafts in the references. This will be updated whenever a
newer version of the draft is published.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed
in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of
the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs
is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why
the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

The document requests no IANA actions.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful
in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

N/A

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

N/A

Thanks
Suresh