Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Network Address Translation Support
draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-23

This document is being returned to the WG for a proposed resolution to post-WGLC comments and following discussion of these at the TSVWG Interim, Sept 2021. Once the proposed resolution is clear, the WG Chairs will re-evaluate the WGLC status and propose the next steps.

Document  Shepherd Write-Up.

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?

PS - This is a standards track specification. It describes the protocol extensions needed for the SCTP endpoints and the mechanisms for NAT functions necessary to provide similar features of NAPT in the single point and multipoint traversal scenario.

(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:

The Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) provides a reliable communications channel between two end-hosts in many ways similar to the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). With the widespread deployment of Network Address Translators (NAT), specialized code has been added to NAT functions for TCP that allows multiple hosts to reside behind a NAT function and yet share a single IPv4 address, even when two hosts (behind a NAT function) choose the same port numbers for their connection.

Working Group Summary:

This document started life as draft-stewart-behave-sctpnat in 2005, and was later added to the behave WG charter in 2013.. TSVWG inherited the work of the former behave WG when this concluded.  draft-stewart-natsupp-tsvwg was brought to tsvwg and adopted in 2010.

The ID completes a series of specifications that specify how core IETF transports interact with NAT.  This work item was developed, but in 2015 the specifications were rewritten to follow the current approach. The document was also restructured to more clearly separate the text for endpoint implementors and SCTP transport maintainers. In 2018, there was a discussion in the WG about whether to continue work on legacy support for NAT, and the working group concluded that this document should be published, and this was still in charter. The WG finally decided to add  a yang model, which was developed separately and added to this spec in revision 16, in 2020. The WG is pleased that this long cycle of development has finally resulted in a complete and useful spec!

Document Quality:

This document has been reviewed in multiple rounds by the working group. It represents the current consensus of this WG.

A YANG Doctor review, has been completed (draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-16) and the document was updated after finalising this model.

Personnel:
Gorry Fairhurst is the Document Shepherd
Magnus Westerlund is the Responsible Area Director

(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.

This document has completed review by the TSVWG and is considered ready for publication.
The draft was updated following experience: FreeBSD contains the middlebox implementation based on an older version.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(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

(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.

RFCs published by the TSVWG can contain informative as well as normative sections. This is the case for many of the SCTP specifications, including this one.

(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, no IPR is known - Irene, Michael, Randall.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No IPR disclosures were observed for this or its predecessor drafts.

(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 TSVWG LC progressed to a clear outcome. Issues were raised by interested parties and these were resolved post-WGLC. There is a consensus to publish this spec.

(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.)

No.

(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.

None.

Note this is about NAT, and therefore there are instances of lines with private range IPv4 addresses. The document is IPv4 only.

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

Yang review done (rev-16).

(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?

No.

(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.

No.

(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.

(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 8126).

IANA updates are noted.

(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 - it refers to existing SCTP registries.

(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, YANG modules, etc.

Yang review done.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

OK.

Document  Shepherd Write-Up.

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?

PS - This is a standards track specification. It describes the protocol extensions needed for the SCTP endpoints and the mechanisms for NAT functions necessary to provide similar features of NAPT in the single point and multipoint traversal scenario.

(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:

The Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) provides a reliable communications channel between two end-hosts in many ways similar to the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). With the widespread deployment of Network Address Translators (NAT), specialized code has been added to NAT functions for TCP that allows multiple hosts to reside behind a NAT function and yet share a single IPv4 address, even when two hosts (behind a NAT function) choose the same port numbers for their connection.

Working Group Summary:

This document started life as draft-stewart-behave-sctpnat in 2005, and was later added to the behave WG charter in 2013.. TSVWG inherited the work of the former behave WG when this concluded.  draft-stewart-natsupp-tsvwg was brought to tsvwg and adopted in 2010.

The ID completes a series of specifications that specify how core IETF transports interact with NAT.  This work item was developed, but in 2015 the specifications were rewritten to follow the current approach. The document was also restructured to more clearly separate the text for endpoint implementors and SCTP transport maintainers. In 2018, there was a discussion in the WG about whether to continue work on legacy support for NAT, and the working group concluded that this document should be published, and this was still in charter. The WG finally decided to add  a yang model, which was developed separately and added to this spec in revision 16, in 2020. The WG is pleased that this long cycle of development has finally resulted in a complete and useful spec!

Document Quality:

This document has been reviewed in multiple rounds by the working group. It represents the current consensus of this WG.

A YANG Doctor review, has been completed (draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-16) and the document was updated after finalising this model.

Personnel:
Gorry Fairhurst is the Document Shepherd
Magnus Westerlund is the Responsible Area Director

(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.

This document has completed review by the TSVWG and is considered ready for publication.
The draft was updated following experience: FreeBSD contains the middlebox implementation based on an older version.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(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

(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.

RFCs published by the TSVWG can contain informative as well as normative sections. This is the case for many of the SCTP specifications, including this one.

(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, no IPR is known - Irene, Michael, Randall.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No IPR disclosures were observed for this or its predecessor drafts.

(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 TSVWG LC progressed to a clear outcome. Issues were raised by interested parties and these were resolved post-WGLC. There is a consensus to publish this spec.

(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.)

No.

(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.

None.

Note this is about NAT, and therefore there are instances of lines with private range IPv4 addresses. The document is IPv4 only.

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

Yang review done (rev-16).

(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?

No.

(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.

No.

(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.

(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 8126).

IANA updates are noted.

(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 - it refers to existing SCTP registries.

(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, YANG modules, etc.

Yang review done.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

OK.

To complete the process...
The WGLC has completed.
The chairs saw responses to the WGLC that supported progression and no notes that recorded reasons to not proceed.
There were issues that need to be cleared for this document to progrees, and the editors now need to respond to or resolve these issues in a new revision.

Hi all,

This email starts the WGLC for
"Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Network Address Translation Support"

The intended status is a Standards Track RFC.
The current version of the document can be found at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp/

Please review the latest version and please let us know any comments or suggestions. TSVWG needs reviews to ensure that the content is ready to move forward. Feedback supporting publication ("+1") is also very welcome.

Thanks

Gorry, on behalf of the TSVWG chairs

Hi all,

The document "TCP Control Block Interdependence" (draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis) is out there for a quite some time already. Given that there has been a bit less activity on the list after the interim, let's use this opportunity to finish one of our milestones...

This e-mail starts a WGLG for the document draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis. The WGLC will run until ***June 14***.

The intended status is a Standards Track RFC.
The current version of the document can be found at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp/

Please review the latest version and please let us know any comments or suggestions. TSVWG needs reviews to ensure that the content is ready to move forward. Feedback supporting publication ("+1") is also very welcome.

Thanks

Gorry, on behalf of the TSVWG chairs