(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Informational. The RFC type is indicated on the front page.
(2) 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.
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?
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? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Technical Summary
The document describes several Network Address Translator (NAT) traversal
techniques that were considered to be used for establishing the RTP media flows
controlled by the Real-time Streaming Protocol (RTSP). Each technique includes
a description on how it would be used, the security implications of using it
and any other deployment considerations it has. There are also discussions on
how NAT traversal techniques relate to firewalls and how each technique can be
applied in different use cases. These findings were used when selecting the NAT
traversal for RTSP 2.0, which is specified in a separate document.
Working Group Summary
The RTSP specification (RFC 2326 and RFC2326bis) has long suffered from lack of
a standardized NAT traversal mechanism and hence there was a desire to rectify
that. The WG decided to investigate different approaches to RTSP NAT traversal
before chosing one, and as a result, the initial WG version of this document
appeared in 2007. Since the document is a companion to RTSP 2.0, progress on
the document was to some extent gated on RTSP 2.0 progress, but a WGLC was
issued in the latter part of 2012. The WGLC concluded that the (at the time
current) version of the document was partially based on now obsolete
NAT-related RFCs and considerations and as a result the authors updated the
document to better reflect current RFCs and recommendations in the area. A WGLC
was issued on this updated document in May 2013 on this document with no major
comments received (2 people are known to have actively reviewed the latest
versions).
Document Quality
The document does not specify any particular protocol but is rather an
investigation into possible protocol choices and as such there are no specific
considerations around implementations, MIB, media type, etc. reviews. The
document quality is good from both a technical and readability point of view.
Personnel
Flemming Andreasen is the document shepherd.
Gonazalo Camarillo is the responsible AD.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
I have reviewed the latest versions (-10, -12 and -13) as well as the
originally WGLC'ed version of the document (-05) in detail. As noted above, the
original version had some issues what have all been addressed in the current
version.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
The document has seen limited review and active contributions from the WG for a
while, however, besides the authors, 2 people have reviewed recent version(s)
in detail. One of the reviewers is Ari Keranen who is a known ICE expert, and
as such there is no concern with the depth of the reviews. While the breadth of
the reviews could be better, there are no specific concerns.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.
No such review is required.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
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.
The document shepheard does not have any specific concerns or issues with the
document.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why?
Both authors have confirmed they are not aware of any IPR to be declared.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
There is no such IPR disclosure.
(9) 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?
The document has seen limited active participation by the WG, however we
believe there is good consensus behind the document for two reasons: - We have
not seen (or heard) anybody express any concerns with the document - The
document conclusion is aligned with the general NAT traversal strategy in the
MMUSIC WG (namely to use ICE).
(10) 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 publicly available.)
There are no known concerns.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
There are no nits at this point. As noted by ID nits check, the document
contains a reference to the now obsolete RFC 3489, however the reference is
informational and fully intentional.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document does not specify any new protocols or extensions and hence the
above review criteria do not apply.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes
(14) 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 plan for their completion?
There are no such normative references.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so,
list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call
procedure.
There are no downward normative references.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and
discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and
Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the
relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this
information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
The document does not change the status of any existing RFCs.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly
created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations
are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
RFC 5226).
The IANA considerations section complies with above (note: IANA considerations
do not apply to this document, but the section is still provided).
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
Not applicable.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd
to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. There is no formal language in the
document and hence no such reviews have been performed.