(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?
This document defines a YANG model for use with Network Address Translation.
It is intended to be a Standard. The document takes care to cover
configuration and operational data monitoring for a variety of standards-based
NAT flavors, and thus a standards track document is appropriate. The standards
track is noted in the header of the document.
(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
For the sake of network automation and the need for programming
Network Address Translation (NAT) function in particular, a data
model for configuring and managing the NAT is essential. This
document defines a YANG module for the NAT function.
NAT44, Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to
IPv4 Servers (NAT64), Customer-side transLATor (CLAT), Stateless IP/
ICMP Translation (SIIT), Explicit Address Mappings for Stateless IP/
ICMP Translation (SIIT EAM), IPv6 Network Prefix Translation (NPTv6),
and Destination NAT are covered in this document.
Working Group Summary
This document proceded quickly through opsawg as the working group agreed that
this work is relevant and the authors addressed feedback in short order. This
feedback included input from vendors as well as operators.
Of note, part of the GENART review for this document pointed out that NPT66,
for which this document's YANG model also covers, is experimental and that
perhaps that part should be broken out into its own module. The ADs felt that
this one piece did not warrant a separate module. That decision was accepted
by the reporter (Tim Chown), the chairs, and the authors.
Document Quality
This document is well-written and has gone through a number of working group
and external reviews. External reviews include GENART, YANG doctors, RTGDIR,
and OPSDIR. All feedback was incorporated.
The YANG module itself validates without any warnings.
Juniper, Cisco, and Huawei all have co-authors on this document (with Orange),
and all three have plans to implement the YANG module.
Personnel
Document shepherd is Joe Clarke, and the responsible AD is Warren Kumari.
(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 read this document and have provided feedback on previous revisions to
the authors. I feel this document is ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No, I do not.
(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.
All directorates except security returned a review of this. Some additional
attention from Security would be good, but I do not have any overt concerns.
(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.
I have not additional concerns.
(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.
Yes. All authors replied that there is no known IPR. These responses can be
found in the archives of the opsawg list.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
There was no IPR, and a disclosure was not filed.
(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?
Consensus was strong with no vocalized dissension.
(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.)
Not to my knowledge.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
The document makes normative references to RFC 6877 (464XLAT) and RFC 6296
(NPTv6) as it provides support for configuring and monitoring these protocols.
Within this scope, it seems the normative references are correct.
Note: the IP address warnings in IDNITS are due to references to IP address
ranges used by certain types of NAT. These are not examples
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
This document was reviewed by YANG Doctors, and all of the feedback was
incorporated into fixes. These can be seen in
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-07.txt .
(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?
See above where normative references are used for informative and experimental
documents due to the coverage of the protocols in those documents. There is
one informative reference to a draft in progress
(draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-yang).
(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.
Yes. See above.
(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.
No, it will not.
(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).
This document does not define any new IANA registries, but it does request the
following URI:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nat
And namespace:
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nat
These are in support of the YANG module defined therein.
(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.
None.
(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.
This document has passed the automated YANG check, which includes a number of
validators.