Skip to main content

NAT64 Deployment Options and Experience
RFC 7269

Yes

(Joel Jaeggli)
(Sean Turner)

No Objection

(Adrian Farrel)
(Barry Leiba)
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Richard Barnes)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Stewart Bryant)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -09)

                            

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -09)

                            

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2014-02-19 for -09)
A minor editorial improvement would make the draft easier to read (when looking at the HTML version, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience-09). Some references don't mention the RFC title and don't have an embedded link.
I had to open a new window, and google the RFC number.
Examples:
    - [RFC6036] reports at least 30% of operators plan to run some kind of translator (presumably NAT64/DNS64).
    - ... while it has to be coordinated with A+P[RFC6346]
    - For example, the value of the "established connection idle-timeout" for TCP sessions must not be less than 2 hours 4 minutes[RFC5382] and 5 minutes for UDP sessions[RFC4787].

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2014-02-20 for -09)
Some nits:

6.2.  Resource Reservation

   Session status normally is managed by a static timer.  For example,
   the value of the "established connection idle-timeout" for TCP
   sessions must not be less than 2 hours 4 minutes[RFC5382] and 5
   minutes for UDP sessions[RFC4787].

This text isn't exactly clear about who is supposed to handle the timers and also the 5 minutes for UDP is not 'less than 5 minutes' but it is RECOMMENDED to be 5  minutes and 'MUST NOT expire in less than two minutes'.

A text change proposal to get it correct:

   The session status at the NAT normally is managed by a static timer.
   For example, the value of the "established connection idle-timeout"
   for TCP sessions must not be less than 2 hours 4 minutes[RFC5382].
   For UDP sessions the timer must not be less than 2 minutes
   [RFC4787],  but the recommended value is 5 minutes.

(Richard Barnes; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Ted Lemon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2014-02-20 for -09)
I support the publication of this document in theory, but I think it really needs an editorial pass to make the language clearer.