Skip to main content

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