IETF conflict review for draft-donley-nat444-impacts
conflict-review-donley-nat444-impacts-01
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2013-07-15
|
01 | Amy Vezza | The following approval message was sent From: The IESG To: "Nevil Brownlee" , draft-donley-nat444-impacts@tools.ietf.org Cc: The IESG , , Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for … The following approval message was sent From: The IESG To: "Nevil Brownlee" , draft-donley-nat444-impacts@tools.ietf.org Cc: The IESG , , Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-donley-nat444-impacts-06 The IESG has completed a review of draft-donley-nat444-impacts-06 consistent with RFC5742. The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Assessing the Impact of Carrier-Grade NAT on Network Applications' as an Informational RFC. The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this document and IETF work. The IESG would also like the RFC-Editor to review the comments in the datatracker related to this document and determine whether or not they merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot and the history log. The IESG review is documented at: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-donley-nat444-impacts/ A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-donley-nat444-impacts/ The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html Thank you, The IESG Secretary |
2013-07-15
|
01 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the conflict review response |
2013-07-15
|
01 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2013-07-15
|
01 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved No Problem - announcement sent from Approved No Problem - announcement to be sent |
2013-07-11
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved No Problem - announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation - Defer |
2013-07-11
|
01 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pete Resnick has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2013-07-11
|
01 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2013-07-11
|
01 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2013-07-11
|
01 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2013-07-10
|
01 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2013-07-10
|
01 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2013-07-10
|
01 | Joel Jaeggli | New version available: conflict-review-donley-nat444-impacts-01.txt |
2013-07-10
|
00 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2013-07-10
|
00 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2013-07-08
|
00 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
2013-07-02
|
00 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2013-07-02
|
00 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot comment] I am balloting no objection, as Pete has already raised the point about the correct write-up. |
2013-07-02
|
00 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2013-07-01
|
00 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot discuss] The text in the conflict review should first give the 5742 boilerplate, word for word ("The IESG has concluded that there is no … [Ballot discuss] The text in the conflict review should first give the 5742 boilerplate, word for word ("The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this document and IETF work.") and only after that do any editorializing or pointing to other commentary that's necessary. That said, I don't understand what the editorializing in the current writeup means and why we think Nevil needs to know that. |
2013-07-01
|
00 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2013-06-27
|
00 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2013-06-26
|
00 | Martin Stiemerling | Telechat date has been changed to 2013-07-11 from 2013-06-27 |
2013-06-26
|
00 | Martin Stiemerling | State changed to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation |
2013-06-26
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2013-06-25
|
00 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2013-06-22
|
00 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2013-06-22
|
00 | Joel Jaeggli | Created "Approve" ballot |
2013-06-22
|
00 | Joel Jaeggli | State changed to IESG Evaluation from AD Review |
2013-06-22
|
00 | Joel Jaeggli | New version available: conflict-review-donley-nat444-impacts-00.txt |
2013-06-22
|
00 | Joel Jaeggli | Shepherding AD changed to Joel Jaeggli |
2013-06-22
|
00 | Joel Jaeggli | State changed to AD Review from Needs Shepherd |
2013-06-22
|
00 | Joel Jaeggli | I'll Take this one. |
2013-06-19
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | The draft draft-donley-nat444-impacts-06 is ready for publication from the Independent Stream. Please ask IESG to review it, as set out in RFC 5742. The … The draft draft-donley-nat444-impacts-06 is ready for publication from the Independent Stream. Please ask IESG to review it, as set out in RFC 5742. The following is some background for this draft, please forward it to IESG along with this request ... It's abstract says: NAT444 is an IPv4 extension technology being considered by Service Providers to continue offering IPv4 service to customers while transitioning to IPv6. This technology adds an extra Carrier-Grade NAT ("CGN") in the Service Provider network, often resulting in two NATs. CableLabs, Time Warner Cable, and Rogers Communications independently tested the impacts of NAT444 on many popular Internet services using a variety of test scenarios, network topologies, and vendor equipment. This document identifies areas where adding a second layer of NAT disrupts the communication channel for common Internet applications. This document was updated to also include Dual-Stack Lite impacts. It was reviewed for me by Brian Carpenter, Simon Perreault amd Tina Tsou; its authors have revised the text in response to their comments, they have also added some measurements of CGN performance. Thanks, Nevil (ISE) -- Nevil Brownlee (ISE), rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org |
2013-06-19
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-06-27 |
2013-06-19
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | IETF conflict review requested |