Subject: [BEHAVE] 2nd WGLC draft-ietf-behave-nat-behavior-discovery-04

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 18:26:29 -0700

I'd like to do a quick one week 2nd WGLC on "NAT Behavior Discovery Using
STUN",
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-nat-behavior-discovery-04>.
This will end on August 14th.  

Please send comments to the authors (CC'd) and the list.

-d

_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:51:38 -0700

The WGLC on draft-ietf-behave-nat-behavior-discovery-04 has concluded, with no
comments received.  I have requested publication of this document.  PROTO
writeup is attached.

-d

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dan Wing
> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 6:26 PM
> To: Behave WG
> Subject: [BEHAVE] 2nd WGLC draft-ietf-behave-nat-behavior-discovery-04
> 

Subject: pub request: draft-ietf-behave-nat-behavior-discovery-04.txt
From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>, "'Magnus Westerlund'" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "'Derek MacDonald'" <[email-masked]>, "'Bruce Lowekamp'" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:47:05 -0700

BEHAVE has finished its WGLC of
draft-ietf-behave-nat-behavior-discovery-04.txt, and request s this document
be published.

Thanks,
-d

-----

Document shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-behave-nat-behavior-discovery-04
date: 29-Aug-2008

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

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?

No concerns.

   (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.

There have been concerns that the procedures described in this document
might be used to predict a NAT's behavior, which would in turn modify
application behavior.  It has been found this is risky because NAT behavior 
is known to change.  Thus, this document is Experimental and also contains 
an Applicability section.  These two things have reduced the working 
group's concerns.

   (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?

There is solid WG consensus behind this document; many of its procedures
are based on procedures in RFC3489.

   (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.)

There has been no extreme discontent.

   (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. 

Yes.

          Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? 

Yes.

          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: Experimental

   (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].

All references are verified by the document shepherd, and are 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?

The document registers some new STUN attributes, following the procedures
of draft-ietf-behave-rfc3489bis (which is the STUN Internet Draft).

   (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?

The document contains no formal language.

   (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.

This specification defines an experimental usage of the Simple
Traversal Underneath Network Address Translators (NAT) (STUN)
Protocol that discovers the presence and current behaviour of NATs
and firewalls between the STUN client and the STUN server.

          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?

The original intent was to publish this specification as Informational,
but the working group decided Experimental would be a better track in
order to more clearly convey the risky nature of attempting to 
determine a NAT's behavior.

          Document Quality
             Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
             significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
             implement the specification? 

Two vendors are known to implement it.

             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? 

They are listed in the acknowledgements section.

             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?

This document did not include such reviews.

          Personnel
             Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

Dan Wing, [email-masked]

             Who is the
             Responsible Area Director? 

Magnus Westerlund, [email-masked]

             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>.'

The IANA Expert(s) for the registries in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE
AD>.