Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal
RFC 8445

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: ben@nostrum.com, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, ice-chairs@ietf.org, ice@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis@ietf.org, pthatcher@google.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis-20.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network
   Address Translator (NAT) Traversal'
  (draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis-20.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Interactive Connectivity Establishment
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Adam Roach, Alexey Melnikov and Ben Campbell.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis/


Technical Summary

     This document describes a protocol for Network Address Translator
     (NAT) traversal for UDP-based communication.  This protocol is called
     Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE).  ICE makes use of the
     Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) protocol and its
     extension, Traversal Using Relay NAT (TURN). This document obsoletes 
     RFC 5245.

Working Group Summary

  The document was discussed and reviewed very actively for many years by 
  many parties.  There is much interest in the community because there are 
  many documents which depend on this document, especially in the RTCWEB 
  work, and because there are many deployed implementations of the existing 
  Proposed Standard (RFC 5245).  Notable discussions include the decisions of 
  the "Ta" value (how frequently packets are sent), backwards compatibility with 
  RFC 5245 endpoints, removal of "aggressive nomination", generalization of 
  ICE to more than just RTP/RTCP, and generalization of ICE signaling to more 
  than just SDP offer/answer.  There was a long-term, lively discussion with a 
  large number of folks followed by thorough review by a smaller number of
  very interested folks.  Consensus was usually not quick, but was broad when 
  finally reached.  One particular point of controversy waws around the Ta value
  and packet pacing, which required significant experimentation by working 
  members in the real world and participation from many other working groups,
  especially from the transport area.  This point was resolved by finding a technical 
  solution that all groups were happy with and which seemed to work well in real 
  world experimentation.   

Document Quality

  Reviews on specific areas (such as the Ta value) were 
  done by folks in the transport area.  Other reviews were done by members of other 
  working groups (such as RTCWEB and MMUSIC).  The reviews were extensive and 
  no further review is necessary.  The document shepherd has no specific concerns 
  or issues with the document.  There are many RFC 5245 implementations and at
  least some of those (especially RTCWEB implementations) are already being updated.  

Personnel

   The document shepherd is Peter Thatcher. The responsible area director is Ben Campbell.