Subject: [tcpm] WGLC draft-ietf-behave-tcp-04 completed

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 13:22:08 -0800

The WGLC of draft-ietf-behave-tcp-04 has completed, with no comments
received.  The document will be sent to IESG for their review.

PROTO writeup is below.

-d

-----

PROTO (draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-09) writeup for:

  "NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP",
  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-behave-tcp-04.txt

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

Dan Wing

The document has been reviewed and is ready for forwarding to IESG for 
publication.

   (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?

During its development, the document has received input from members
of the TCPM working group (especially Joe Touch and Fernando Gont), and 
that input was integrated into this document.

The document had a two-week WGLC in both TCPM and BEHAVE working groups.  

There were no comments during this last call.

The Document Shepherd has no concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews.

   (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?

Additional review is not necessary.

   (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 a little concern that the TCP document normatively 
references the UDP document (draft-ietf-behave-nat-udp, soon to be 
published as RFC4787), because this requires reading both documents.
WG consensus was to normatively reference UDP, as is done in the
document.

There is no IPR on 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?

The document has strong WG consensus.

   (1.f)  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
          entered into the ID Tracker.)

None indicated.

   (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?

The document hsa pre-Feb-2007 copyright, per idnits 1.124:

  - This document has ISOC Copyright according to RFC 3978, instead of the
    newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748.  You should consider
    updating it; the new Copyright statement will be required from February
    1st, 2007
  - This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead
of
    the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC
4748. 
    You should consider updating it; the new disclaimer will be required
from
    February 1st, 2007

   (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, the document has split its references.  

There are two I-Ds cited as normative:  

  * draft-ietf-behave-nat-icmp, which is not yet ready for 
    advancement (it has not been WGLC'd).  It is expected to be
    WGLC'd later this year.
  * draft-ietf-behave-nat-udp is in the RFC Editor's queue.

There are no downward references.

   (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
          consideration 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 Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that 
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

There are no IANA considerations for this specification; the document does
not describe an Expert Review process.

   (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?

This document does not contain any such 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
This document defines a set of requirements for NATs that handle TCP
that would allow many applications, such as peer-to-peer applications
and on-line games, to work consistently.  Developing NATs that meet
this set of requirements will greatly increase the likelihood that
these applications will function properly.

          Working Group Summary
This document was a product of the BEHAVE working group.

          Document Quality
This document describes recommended practices for NATs.  Most 
existing NATs already conform to these requirements.

          Personnel
Dan Wing is the Document Shepherd, and Magnus Westerlund is
the Responsible Area Director.

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm