Analysis of Stateful 64 Translation
draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis-07

[Ballot discuss]
The Gen-ART Review by David Black on 28-Feb-2012 raises one major
  concern that needs to be addressed.  David offers alternative
  text, but the authors have not said whether they agree with it as
  yet.  The review form David can be found here:
 
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg07228.html

[Ballot comment]
I have no objection to the publication of this document, but I have a
number of small issues I hope you will attend to before publication.

---

Section 2 is unnecessary and should be removed (deosn't idnits give a
warning about this?)

---

In Section 3, it would help the reader if you did not use the passive
voice.

  Following is a point by point
  analysis of the problems.  Issues listed in [RFC4966] are classified
  into three categories:

Is the classification yours or does it come from RFC 4966? It is a bit
of a nuisance to have to read RFC 4966 to discover the answer?

In view of this, I found the category "impossible to solve" to be an
"interesting" categorisation! Where is the proof?


---

Section 3.3

          Analysis: This issue has mitigated severity as the DNS is
          separated from the NAT functionality.

Using a past participle as an adjective is all very well, but here is 
has confused the meaning! It reads as though the issue has done the
mitigation. Better to say:

  The severity of this issue has been mitigated...

And then it is normal to treat mitigation as transitive. So, what did
the mitigation?

  The severity of this issue has been mitigated by the separation of
  the DNS from the NAT functionality.

---

Section 3.3, item 3

This item suggests that you need a fourth category: viz. issues that
do not apply to this problem space.

---

Section 6 would be enhanced by pointing at the issues within the
document that are related to security.

---

I'm slightly suspiscious that the reference to
[I-D.haddad-mext-nat64-mobility-harmful] in Section 3.1 may be
normative.

I am pretty sure that [I-D.ietf-pcp-base] is normative in item 4 of
Section 3.3.

[I-D.ietf-behave-lsn-requirements] in item 6 of Section 3.3 may be
normative.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Analysis of Stateful 64 Translation) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Behavior Engineering for
Hindrance Avoidance WG (behave) to consider the following document:
- 'Analysis of Stateful 64 Translation'
  as an Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-02-20. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  Due to specific problems, NAT-PT was deprecated by the IETF as a
  mechanism to perform IPv6-IPv4 translation.  Since then, new efforts
  have been undertaken within IETF to standardize alternative
  mechanisms to perform IPv6-IPv4 translation.  This document evaluates
  how the new stateful translation mechanisms avoid the problems that
  caused the IETF to deprecate NAT-PT.





The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation::External Party.
AD Review: draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis-04

1) Reference to IDs  that have expired (haddad, wing-config, etc.)

2) SCTP is not out of scope for 64; it hasn't been addressed yet, but it is in scope of 64. It can be out of scope of this document.

3) "Analysis: Since the DNS-ALG is not there, there is no need to maintain temporary states in anticipation of connections. Note that explicit bindings are required to allow for communications initiated from an IPv4-only client to an IPv6- only server. " not where?

4) explicit bindings? is there are reference for this?

5) "The port limit imposed by carrier grade deployment (e.g., [I-D.ietf-behave-lsn-requirements]) mitigates the exhaustion of port pools issue (Section 3.4 of [RFC4966])." CGN is not a requirement of 64, therefore CGN requirements do not mitigate this concern for 64. Therefore, the conclusion that this concern is fully eliminated in 64 seems questionable.

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

document: draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis-04.txt
shepherd: Dan Wing, dwing@cisco.com

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?

Yes, sufficient review has been performed.


(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.

No concerns.

There are no IPR disclosures against 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?

This document analyzies how well BEHAVE's NAT64 documents resolve
the problems described in RFC4966 (which deprecated NAT-PT).

Consensus is fairly solid.



(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.)

No significant conflict with this document has occurred.



(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?

No such reviews are needed.

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: Informational


(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, references are split, and all appear 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?

This document does not need any IANA action.


(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?

Verified.

(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.


Due to specific problems, NAT-PT was deprecated by the IETF as a
mechanism to perform IPv6-IPv4 translation. Since then, new efforts
have been undertaken within IETF to standardize alternative
mechanisms to perform IPv6-IPv4 translation. This document evaluates
how the new stateful translation mechanisms avoid the problems that
caused the IETF to deprecate NAT-PT.




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?

Nothing exciting happened.


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

Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the
Responsible Area Director? If the document requires IANA
experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
in this document are .'

shepherd: Dan Wing
responsible AD: David Harrington



The Document Shepherd MUST send the Document Shepherd Write-Up to the
Responsible Area Director and iesg-secretary@ietf.org together with
the request to publish the document. The Document Shepherd SHOULD
also send the entire Document Shepherd Write-Up to the working group
mailing list. If the Document Shepherd feels that information which
may prove to be sensitive, may lead to possible appeals, or is
personal needs to be written up, it SHOULD be sent in direct email to
the Responsible Area Director, because the Document Shepherd Write-Up
is published openly in the ID Tracker. Question (1.f) of the
Write-Up covers any material of this nature and specifies this more
confidential handling.