Middlebox Communications (MIDCOM) Protocol Semantics
RFC 3989

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>,
    RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, 
    midcom chair <midcom-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'MIDCOM Protocol Semantics' to 
         Proposed Standard 

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'MIDCOM Protocol Semantics '
  RFC 3989 as a Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Middlebox Communication Working 
Group. 

The IESG contact persons are Magnus Westerlund and Lars Eggert.

A URL of this RFC is:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3989.txt

Technical Summary
 
   This memo specifies semantics for a Middlebox Communication (MIDCOM)
   protocol to be used by MIDCOM agents for interacting with middleboxes
   such as firewalls and Network Address Translators (NATs).  The
   semantics discussion does not include any specification of a concrete
   syntax or a transport protocol. However the implementation of the 
   sematics in draft-ietf-midcom-mib does require the sematics description




   as normative reference. Therefore the semantics declaration is 
   reclassified from informational to proposed standard


Working Group Summary
 
   There is consensus in the WG to reclassify this document to proposed 
   standard to provide the necessary normative language for 
   draft-ietf-midcom-mib. 
 
Protocol Quality
 
   Magnus Westerlund reveiwed the document for IESG. The memo is already 
   published as RFC 3989 with informational status. 

Note to RFC Editor
 
Please issue a new RFC based on RFC 3989 with the below changes and
obsolete RFC 3989. 

Title page: 

Change: The boilerplate will be required to change to the one for
standard tracks documents.

In section 2.1.1:
OLD:
      - Asynchronous transactions allowing the middlebox to change state
        without a request by an agent.
NEW:
      - Asynchronous transactions allowing to report state changes that
        have not been requested by the agent.


In section 2.1.6:
OLD:
      - Optional interface-specific policy rule support: not
        supported or supported
NEW:
      - Support for interface-specific policy rules


OLD:
2.1.8.  Conformance

   The MIDCOM requirements in [MDC-REQ] demand capabilities of the
   MIDCOM protocol that are met by the set of transactions specified
   below.  However, an actual implementation of a middlebox may support
   only a subset of these transactions.  The set of announced supported
NEW:
2.1.8.  Conformance

   The MIDCOM requirements in [MDC-REQ] demand capabilities of the
   MIDCOM protocol that are met by the set of transactions specified
   below.  However, it is not required that an actual implementation of a
   middlebox supports all these transactions.  The set of announced
supported


OLD:
3.  Conformance Statements

   A protocol definition complies with the semantics defined in section
   2 if the protocol specification includes all specified transactions
   with all their mandatory parameters.  However, concrete
   implementations of the protocol may support only some of the optional
   transactions, not all of them.  Which transactions are required for
   compliance is different for agent and middlebox.
NEW:
3.  Conformance Statements

   A protocol definition complies with the semantics defined in section
   2 if the protocol specification includes all specified transactions
   with all their mandatory parameters.  However, it is not required that
   an actual implementation of a middlebox supports all these
transactions.
   Which transactions are required for compliance is different for agent
   and middlebox.

IESG Note

 (Insert IESG Note here)

IANA Note

 (Insert IANA Note here)