Peter Thatcher is the document shepherd. Ben Campbell is the Area Director.
The intent of the document is to "describe a protocol for Network Address
Translator (NAT) traversal for UDP-based communication". The working group has
chosen a Proposed Standard because this document obsoletes a previous Proposed
The document was discussed and reviewed very actively for many years by many
parties. There is much interest in the community because there are many
documents which depend on this document, especially in the RTCWEB work, and
because there are many deployed implementations of the existing Proposed
Standard (RFC 5245). Notable discussions include the decisions of the "Ta"
value (how frequently packets are sent), backwards compatibility with RFC 5245
endpoints, removal of "aggressive nomination", generalization of ICE to more
than just RTP/RTCP, and generalization of ICE signaling to more than just SDP
offer/answer. There was a long-term, lively discussion with a large number of
folks followed by thorough review by a smaller number of very interested folks.
Consensus was usually not quick, but was broad when finally reached. One
particular point of controversy waws around the Ta value and packet pacing,
which required significant experimentation by working members in the real world
and participation from many other working groups, especially from the transport
area. This point was resolved by finding a technical solution that all groups
were happy with and which seemed to work well in real world experimentation.
Reviews on specific areas (such as the Ta value) were done by folks in the
transport area. Other reviews were done by members of other working groups
(such as RTCWEB and MMUSIC). The reviews were extensive and no further review
is necessary. The document shepherd has no specific concerns or issues with
the document. There are many RFC 5245 implementations and at least some of
those (especially RTCWEB implementations) are already being updated.
It is confirmed that each author has stated their direct, personal knowledge
that any IPR related to this document has already been disclosed, in
conformance with BCPs 78 and 79.
The list and authors were asked to disclose any IPR, after which one item was
disclosed. All other feedback was that there was no other known IPR related to
There is one downward reference to RFC6928. There is one IANA Consideration, a
new registration, but no new registry. There is no known significant
discontent with the document or the process, which might result in appeals to
the IESG or especially bad feelings in the working group.