Common Requirements for Carrier-Grade NATs (CGNs)
RFC 6888

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2016-11-30
10 David Harrington Closed request for Early review by TSVDIR with state 'Unknown'
2015-10-14
10 (System) Notify list changed from behave-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements@ietf.org to (None)
2013-04-29
10 (System) RFC published
2013-03-27
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2013-03-16
10 Martin Stiemerling Shepherding AD changed to Martin Stiemerling
2013-02-22
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2012-12-06
10 Simon Perreault New version available: draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-10.txt
2012-09-27
09 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2012-09-26
09 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC
2012-09-26
09 Cindy Morgan State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2012-09-26
09 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2012-09-26
09 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2012-09-26
09 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2012-09-26
09 Wesley Eddy State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2012-09-26
09 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ronald Bonica has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2012-09-04
09 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ralph Droms has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2012-08-10
09 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot comment]
Thank you for addressing my issue.
2012-08-10
09 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] Position for Martin Stiemerling has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2012-08-10
09 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] Position for Sean Turner has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2012-08-10
09 Stephen Farrell [Ballot comment]
I still don't get why you need a MUST in REQ-4 for per-subsciber
limits. Seems over contstrained to me.
2012-08-10
09 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2012-08-09
09 Wesley Eddy Ballot writeup was changed
2012-08-09
09 Wesley Eddy Ballot writeup was changed
2012-08-09
09 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot discuss]
(1) cleared

(2) cleared

(3) Does REQ-7 mean "CGNs SHOULD use EIF"? Its not clear to
me if you mean that, or if ...
2012-08-09
09 Stephen Farrell [Ballot comment]

I still don't get why you need a MUST in REQ-4 for per-subsciber
limits. Seems over contstrained to me.
2012-08-09
09 Stephen Farrell Ballot comment and discuss text updated for Stephen Farrell
2012-08-09
09 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2012-08-09
09 Simon Perreault New version available: draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-09.txt
2012-07-19
08 Cindy Morgan State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation
2012-07-19
08 Sean Turner
[Ballot discuss]
Updated based on discussions with the author:

1) addressed

Will wait for a new version before clearing this.

2) s4: doesn't transport ...
2012-07-19
08 Sean Turner Ballot discuss text updated for Sean Turner
2012-07-19
08 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2012-07-19
08 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo
2012-07-19
08 Adrian Farrel [Ballot comment]
I agree with Ralph and Russ
2012-07-19
08 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2012-07-19
08 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
I'll trust the ADs who reported the DISCUSSes to solve the issues. Note that I'll have a closer look at the ...
2012-07-19
08 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2012-07-18
08 Martin Stiemerling
[Ballot comment]
I am fine with this being BCP.  (the prior version of the ballot was a typo)

Section 3., paragraph 50:

>    ...
2012-07-18
08 Martin Stiemerling Ballot comment text updated for Martin Stiemerling
2012-07-18
08 Robert Sparks
[Ballot comment]
I share Ralph's question about how this updates RFC4787.

It worries me that we are requiring the implementation of a new protocol ...
2012-07-18
08 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Sparks
2012-07-18
08 Ron Bonica [Ballot comment]
Agree with Russ that this document should be INFORMATIONAL
2012-07-18
08 Ron Bonica Ballot comment text updated for Ronald Bonica
2012-07-18
08 Sean Turner
[Ballot discuss]
1) s4: Shouldn't the requirements for the timestamp be identical to the requirement in 6302:

  A timestamp, RECOMMENDED in UTC, accurate ...
2012-07-18
08 Sean Turner
[Ballot comment]
s4: Because you gave an out in the previous paragraph it's worth noting in the following that one reason might be that ...
2012-07-18
08 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Sean Turner
2012-07-17
08 Martin Stiemerling
[Ballot discuss]
Updated my position, after reading REQ-9 again:

>> Section 3., paragraph 42:
>
>>>    REQ-9:  A CGN MUST include a Port ...
2012-07-17
08 Martin Stiemerling
[Ballot comment]
I am fine with this being informational.

Section 3., paragraph 50:

>    REQ-10:  CGN implementrers SHOULD make their equipment manageable.
>  ...
2012-07-17
08 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] Position for Martin Stiemerling has been changed to Discuss from No Objection
2012-07-17
08 Alexey Melnikov Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed. Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov.
2012-07-17
08 Pete Resnick
[Ballot comment]
For the IESG: Perhaps I'm just being contrarian today, but I *do* think this document should be BCP and not Informational. It ...
2012-07-17
08 Pete Resnick Ballot comment text updated for Pete Resnick
2012-07-17
08 Pete Resnick
[Ballot comment]
For the IESG: Perhaps I'm just being contrarian today, but I *do* think this document should be BCP and not Informational. It ...
2012-07-17
08 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2012-07-17
08 Martin Stiemerling
[Ballot comment]
I second the view that is should be an informational RFC, not BCP.

Section 3., paragraph 41:

>      Note that this ...
2012-07-17
08 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2012-07-17
08 Stewart Bryant
[Ballot comment]
I agree with Russ's DISCUSS concerning the classification of
this document as BCP. Informational seems more appropriate.

===

Why does REQ-1 not also ...
2012-07-17
08 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant
2012-07-16
08 Ralph Droms
[Ballot discuss]
I want to discuss the indication that this document updates RFC 4787.
My position does not require any changes to the document by ...
2012-07-16
08 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Ralph Droms
2012-07-14
08 Russ Housley
[Ballot discuss]

  In the Gen-ART Review by Alexey Melnikov on 3-July-2012, he asked:
  >
  > I found it is to be odd ...
2012-07-14
08 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Russ Housley
2012-07-14
08 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot discuss]
(1) As written, REQ-1 is followed by a MUST that applies to
anyone who ever writes a NAT-considerations for any transport
protocol for ...
2012-07-14
08 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]
- Ought you do s/must/MUST/ in "In other words, a CGN must
use the same external IP address mapping for all sessions ...
2012-07-14
08 Stephen Farrell Ballot comment and discuss text updated for Stephen Farrell
2012-07-13
08 Samuel Weiler Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Sam Hartman.
2012-07-13
08 Samuel Weiler Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Sam Hartman
2012-07-13
08 Samuel Weiler Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Sam Hartman
2012-07-13
08 Samuel Weiler Assignment of request for Last Call review by SECDIR to Jeffrey Hutzelman was rejected
2012-07-13
08 Ron Bonica
[Ballot discuss]
Section 5, as it is currently composed, strays from requirements into potential solutions.

From the perspective of a requirements document, Section 5 is ...
2012-07-13
08 Ron Bonica Ballot discuss text updated for Ronald Bonica
2012-07-13
08 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot discuss]

(1) As written, REQ-1 is followed by a MUST that applies to
anyone who ever writes a NAT-considerations for any transport
protocol for ...
2012-07-13
08 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]

- Ought you do s/must/MUST/ in "In other words, a CGN must
use the same external IP address mapping for all sessions ...
2012-07-13
08 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2012-07-13
08 Ron Bonica
[Ballot discuss]
The practice of posting IPR against requirements documents is troubling. What does such IPR mean? That all fully compliant implementations are IPR encumbered ...
2012-07-13
08 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica
2012-07-12
08 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov
2012-07-12
08 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov
2012-07-12
08 Brian Haberman
[Ballot comment]
1. In section 3, the text states "If NAT behavioral requirements documents are created for additional protocols, then these new documents MUST update ...
2012-07-12
08 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2012-07-11
08 Simon Perreault New version available: draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-08.txt
2012-07-11
07 Barry Leiba
[Ballot comment]
Substantive comments; these are non-blocking, but please consider them
seriously, and feel free to chat with me about them:

-- REQ-5 --
      ...
2012-07-11
07 Barry Leiba Ballot comment text updated for Barry Leiba
2012-07-10
07 Barry Leiba
[Ballot comment]
Substantive comments; these are non-blocking, but please consider them
seriously, and feel free to chat with me about them:

-- REQ-5 --
      ...
2012-07-10
07 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2012-07-10
07 Wesley Eddy State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2012-07-10
07 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2012-07-06
07 Wesley Eddy Placed on agenda for telechat - 2012-07-19
2012-07-06
07 Wesley Eddy Ballot has been issued
2012-07-06
07 Wesley Eddy [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy
2012-07-06
07 Wesley Eddy Created "Approve" ballot
2012-07-06
07 Wesley Eddy Ballot writeup was changed
2012-07-06
07 Pearl Liang IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion.
2012-07-03
07 Alexey Melnikov Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed. Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov.
2012-06-28
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov
2012-06-28
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov
2012-06-28
07 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jeffrey Hutzelman
2012-06-28
07 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jeffrey Hutzelman
2012-06-26
07 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: <behave@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf ...
2012-06-26
07 Amy Vezza State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2012-06-26
07 Wesley Eddy Last call was requested
2012-06-26
07 Wesley Eddy Last call announcement was generated
2012-06-26
07 Wesley Eddy Ballot approval text was generated
2012-06-26
07 Wesley Eddy Ballot writeup was generated
2012-06-26
07 Wesley Eddy State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2012-06-13
07 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2012-06-13
07 Simon Perreault New version available: draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-07.txt
2012-05-30
06 Wesley Eddy comments sent to WG on 5/31/2012
2012-05-30
06 Wesley Eddy State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2012-05-03
06 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2012-05-03
06 Simon Perreault New version available: draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-06.txt
2012-03-29
05 Martin Stiemerling Responsible AD changed to Wesley Eddy from David Harrington
2012-02-08
05 David Harrington
State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from Publication Requested.
AD Review of draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-05

Major comment:
IETF should focus on technical issues that affect ...
2011-12-21
05 David Harrington Request for Early review by TSVDIR is assigned to Richard Woundy
2011-12-21
05 David Harrington Request for Early review by TSVDIR is assigned to Richard Woundy
2011-12-12
05 Amy Vezza
UPDATED PROTO Write-up:

  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

document: draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-05
shepherd: Dan Wing, dwing@cisco.com

    ...
2011-12-09
05 Amy Vezza
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

document: draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-05
shepherd: Dan Wing, dwing@cisco.com

Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this ...
2011-12-09
05 Amy Vezza Draft added in state Publication Requested
2011-12-09
05 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'Dan Wing (dwing@cisco.com) is the document shepherd.' added
2011-11-30
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-05.txt
2011-10-24
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-04.txt
2011-08-18
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-03.txt
2011-07-11
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-02.txt
2011-03-14
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-01.txt
2010-10-18
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-00.txt