NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP
RFC 5382
Yes
(Cullen Jennings)
(Jari Arkko)
(Magnus Westerlund)
No Objection
(Chris Newman)
(Dan Romascanu)
(David Ward)
(Jon Peterson)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert
(was Discuss)
Yes
Comment
(2007-04-16)
[Editing nits emailed to authors directly.]
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
Yes
Yes
()
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Chris Newman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
David Ward Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2007-04-17)
I'm not making this a discuss, but I consider it a significant limitation that this document does not consider the implications of an external address being used both for local traffic to the NAT and for translated traffic. I think the requirements for handling internal SYNs are very challenging to deal with in this situation and guidance would almost certainly improve implementation quality here. I've seen significant problems with NATs getting issues like this wrong for UDP.
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()