Updates to Network Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements
draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update-08

[Ballot comment]
Some very minor comments:

- I echo Stephen's thanks to the shepherd for the details on the handling of the IPR disclosure.

- 14, third paragraph:
Please consider changing the "MUST...only" construction to either "MAY...only" or "MUST NOT...unless". I personally prefer the latter.  (OTOH, isn't this already covered normatively in section 3? Perhaps it could be descriptive here.)

-- Third paragraph from end:
s/"Hosts which require..."/"Hosts that require..."

[Ballot comment]

- Thanks for the info about the IPR declaration in the write
up. It's useful to know that.

- intro: Phrases like "greatly advanced" always make me think
I'm getting sales talk and make me wonder why. (In this case,
there was no other sales talk though, and thanks for that:-)
I think s/greatly advanced/documented/ would have been fine.

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update-06.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: "David L. Black" , tsvwg@ietf.org, david.black@emc.com, draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update@ietf.org, spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com, tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Network Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements Updates) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from the Transport Area Working Group WG
(tsvwg) to consider the following document:
- 'Network Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements Updates'
  as Best Current
Practice

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 2016-02-16. 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


  This document clarifies and updates several requirements of RFC4787,
  RFC5382 and RFC5508 based on operational and development experience.
  The focus of this document is NAT44.

  This document updates RFC4787, RFC5382 and RFC5508.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update/ballot/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1917/

Document shepherd write-up:

  Network Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements Updates
            draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update-06

1. Summary

Document Shepherd: David Black
Responsible AD: Spencer Dawkins

This is a maintenance draft for NAT behavioral requirements that
were originally specified in the (now closed) behave WG.  As the last
remaining work item in the behave WG, this draft was transferred to
the tsvwg WG for completion.  See the draft for discussion of its
relationship to RFCs 4787, 5382, 5508 - all three of those RFCs
will be updated by RFC publication of this draft.

Best Current Practice status has been requested because this draft
updates behavioral (and in some cases, operational) guidelines for
NAT functionality, which is widely deployed in the Internet, and
because it is based on experience with implementation and deployment
of the three RFCs that it modifies.

2. Review and Consensus

The Transport Area WG (TSVWG) is a collection of people with varied
interests that don't individually justify their own working groups.

This draft is supported by the portion of the TSVWG that is interested
in NAT behavior, and has received reviews and discussions from
several experts within that community (some of these reviews have been
solicited by the WG chairs).  Outside of the reviews, there has been
limited WG discussion, as the draft was basically complete when it was
transferred to the tsvwg WG.

3. Intellectual Property

This was "interesting" and not in a good way.  During the first WGLC for
this draft, one of the authors indicated that there was previously
disclosed IPR that the WG chairs were not aware of.  The underlying cause
turned out to be some missing "updated by" links in the datatracker -
adding those links caused an existing IPR disclosure to be applied to
this draft.

A second WGLC was run to call attention to the newly applicable IPR
disclosure.  No objections based on the IPR disclosure were received
(but we did get another good expert review of the draft).

With the misisng "updated by" links now in place, each draft 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.

4. Other Points

idnits 2.13.02 on the -06 version found the disclaimer for pre-RFC5378
work.  This disclaimer is necessary due to the relationship of this draft
to extensive prior IETF work on NATs.

There are no DOWNREFs or IANA Considerations.