NAT Traversal Practices for Client-Server SIP
draft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios-15

[Ballot comment]
The use of 2119 language here is a tiny bit odd. RECOMMENDED is used a bunch
of times, but the doc's informational. I assume that those RECOMMENDED's just
replicate what's already in standards-track or BCP documents? Might be worth
pointing that out if its true.

[Ballot discuss]
Discuss discuss: Hopefully a trivial process point - this has BCP in the title, does
RECOMMEND a few things but is listed for informational - what's up there? (I see
that the intended status was changed back in Feb by Robert so he can probably
answer and then I can clear:-)

[Ballot comment]
The use of 2119 language here is a tiny bit odd. RECOMMENDED is used a bunch
of times, but the doc's informational. I assume that those RECOMMENDED's just
replicate what's already in standards-track or BCP documents? Might be worth
pointing that out if its true.

[Ballot discuss]
Discuss discuss: Hopefully a trivial process point - this has BCP in the title, does
RECOMMEND a few things but is listed for informational - what's up there? (I see
that the intended status was changed back in Feb by Robert so he can probably
answer and then I can clear:-)

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Best Current Practices for NAT Traversal for Client-Server SIP) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Best Current Practices for NAT Traversal for Client-Server SIP'
  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 2011-03-18. 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

  Traversal of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the sessions
  it establishes through Network Address Translators (NATs) is a
  complex problem.  Currently there are many deployment scenarios and
  traversal mechanisms for media traffic.  This document provides
  concrete recommendations and a unified method for NAT traversal as
  well as documenting corresponding flows.


The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios/

PROTO questionnaire for: draft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios-15.txt

To be Published as: Informational

Prepared by: Mary Barnes (mary.barnes@polycom.com) on 14 February 2011


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

Mary Barnes is the document shepherd.  She has reviewed this version of the document and believes it is ready.

  (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.  Five members (Francois Audet, Vijay Gurbani, Dan Wing, Ali Keranen and Jerry Yin) of the WG have reviewed this document in detail. In addition, area/cross-area reviews were done by Remi Denis-Courmant (BEHAVE) and Philip Matthews (RAI area). Note, that Francois Audet was later added as a co-author.
There are no concerns over the depth or breadth of the reviews.


  (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.

  (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.

There are no specific concerns or issues. There is no IPR disclosure.

  (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?

There is WG consensus behind this document and no one has
expressed concerns about its progression. 

  (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.

  (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?

Yes. The draft has been validated for nits using idnits 2.12.06. There are some nits with regards to IPv4 addresses, but the values are intentional. 

  (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, the document references are split.  There are no normative downward references.

  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
          consideration 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 Shepherd
          conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
          can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

Yes, there is an appropriate IANA section reflecting that this document has no IANA considerations.

  (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?

There are no sections written in a formal language requiring validation.

  (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
            Traversal of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the
            sessions it establishes through Network Address Translators
            (NATs) is a complex problem.  Currently there are many deployment
            scenarios and traversal mechanisms for media traffic. 
            This document aims to provide concrete recommendations and
            a unified method for NAT traversal as well as documenting
            corresponding flows.

          Working Group Summary
            The SIPPING WG supports the development and advancement of
            this document.

          Document Quality
            This document defines no new protocol elements.
            The document was thoroughly reviewed within the SIPPING WG.
            Francois Audet, Vijay Gurbani, Dan Wing, Ali Keranen and
            Jerry Yin provided detailed WG reviews of the document.
            In addition, area/cross-area reviews were done by
            Remi Denis-Courmant (BEHAVE/TSV area) and Philip Matthews (RAI area).
            Dan Wing provided a final review ensuring that the technical
            details align with the more recently published BEHAVE WG
            documents (e.g., TURN)

          Personnel
            Mary Barnes is the WG chair shepherd. Robert Sparks is the
            responsible Area director.