Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers
draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful-12

During AUTH48, remember to add a reference to Section 4.3 of [RFC4787] in the security considerations, and to tweak the wording from "MAY choose not to extend" to "MAY choose to not extend"
see email thread on 10/21

[Ballot comment]
1. Please provide an informational reference to RFC 5245 for ICE, and expand the term on first use.

2. Please provide an informational reference to RFC 5389 for STUN, and expand the term on first use.

3. Among the contributors, Simon Parreault's last name is in fact Perreault.

[Ballot comment]
3.4.  Determining the Incoming tuple

      The NAT64 MUST handle fragments.  In particular, NAT64 MUST handle
      fragments arriving out-of-order , conditioned on the following:

      *  The NAT64 MUST limit the amount of resources devoted to the
        storage of fragmented packets in order to protect from DoS
        attacks.

I think these 2 requirements are slightly in conflict, as an implementation claiming compliance can claim to never have resources, which means that support for fragments is truly optional.


3.5.1.1.  Rules for Allocation of IPv4 Transport Addresses for UDP

      In all cases, the allocated IPv4 transport address (T,t) MUST NOT
      be in use in another entry in the same BIB, but MAY be in use in

MAY here is not an implementation choice, so the use of MAY is not appropriate.
I suggest changing this to "can".

      the other BIB (referring to the UDP and TCP BIBs).

s/UDP/ICMP ?
(Similar text in Section 3.5.2.3).

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

draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful-09
Dave Thaler, dthaler@microsoft.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?

This document has received significant review.
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.

No concerns.

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.

None

(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?

Solid.

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 WG has a good understanding of, and agreement with, this document.

(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.)

No such threats or appeals.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
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 ID-nits errors.


There are some warnings (about "MUST not" that should be "MUST NOT",
and unused references that should go away) that will be cleaned
up.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative?

Yes.

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 normative references are either to standards track RFCs, BCP RFCs,
or to drafts being simultaneously submitted for publication.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document?

Yes.

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 [RFC5226]. 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 actions for IANA.

(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 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
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 document describes stateful NAT64 translation, which allows
IPv6-only clients to contact IPv4 servers using unicast UDP, TCP, or
ICMP. The public IPv4 address can be shared among several IPv6-only
clients. When the stateful NAT64 is used in conjunction with DNS64
no changes are usually required in the IPv6 client or the IPv4
server.


Working Group Summary
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
rough?

No.

Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

Yes,
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg08102.html

Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification?

Yes, several vendors are actively implementing 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?

They are listed in the document's acknowledgement 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?

No such reviews were necessary.


Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

Dave Thaler, dthaler@microsoft.com

Who is the
Responsible Area Director?

Magnus Westerlund, magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com


If the document requires IANA
experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
in this document are .'


The document doesn't require IANA experts.