Shepherd writeup

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, 
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

Intended status: Standards Track

Why is this the proper type of RFC?

The document contains normative procedures.

Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Yes

(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.

Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Back-to-Back User Agents (B2BUAs) are 
often designed to be on the media path, rather than just intercepting 
signaling.  This means that B2BUAs often act on the media path leading 
to separate media legs that the B2BUA correlates and bridges together.  
When acting on the media path, B2BUAs are likely to receive Session 
Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) packets as part of Interactive 
Connectivity Establishment (ICE) processing. It is critical that B2BUAs 
handle these STUN messages properly.

This document defines behavior for a B2BUA performing ICE processing. 
The goal of this document is to ensure that ICE used for NAT and 
Firewall traversal of multimedia sessions works when there are B2BUAs in 
place and the B2BUAs handle STUN messages properly.

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?

The WG path of this document was reasonably short and efficient. Several 
technical comments were made during reviews and all were resolved with 
There is consensus in the STRAW WG to publish this document.
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?

The guidelines and procedures in the document is based on input  and 
experience from the implementer community.

Who is the Document Shepherd?

Victor Pascual ( -- STRAW WG co-chair) Who 
is the Responsible Area Director?
Richard Barnes <>

(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 

The 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?


(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 


(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.

No 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?


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If 
so, summarize any WG
discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No

(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 WG as a whole understand and agree with it

(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.)


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this 
document. (See and the Internet-Drafts 
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be 

idnits 2.13.01


Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
---- No issues found here.
Checking nits according to
---- No issues found here.
Checking nits according to  :
---- No issues found here.
Miscellaneous warnings:

No issues found here.

Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard

(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references 
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

No issues found here. No nits found.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review 
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not Applicable

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either 
normative or informative?


(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?


(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.


(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.


(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 makes no request or reference to IANA

(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.

This document makes no request to IANA

(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 does not use formal language such as XML code, BNF rules 
or MIB definitions.