[tcpm] WGLC draft-ietf-behave-tcp-04 completed
"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Fri, 09 February 2007 21:22 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HFdCA-0007L9-Qi; Fri, 09 Feb 2007 16:22:14 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HFdC9-0007Ku-5d; Fri, 09 Feb 2007 16:22:13 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HFdC7-0002Ba-HN; Fri, 09 Feb 2007 16:22:13 -0500
Received: from sj-dkim-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.79]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Feb 2007 13:22:10 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.13,308,1167638400"; d="scan'208"; a="387569367:sNHT63232630"
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (sj-core-3.cisco.com [171.68.223.137]) by sj-dkim-5.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l19LMAYB029818; Fri, 9 Feb 2007 13:22:10 -0800
Received: from dwingwxp ([10.32.240.194]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l19LM8ho003638; Fri, 9 Feb 2007 13:22:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: behave@ietf.org, tcpm@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 13:22:08 -0800
Message-ID: <015d01c74c90$5b79a990$c2f0200a@amer.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
In-Reply-To:
Thread-Index: Acc/7+pIYyPyXe++QkyaABxXjX3fXAMoDzcw
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=7638; t=1171056130; x=1171920130; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim5002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20<dwing@cisco.com> |Subject:=20WGLC=20draft-ietf-behave-tcp-04=20completed |Sender:=20; bh=EqmZd2UjtCAWT8Li4D2QctAWh09jlHRzaz43ES2eI8s=; b=IQmZ4TLI7U7hdGQ6amXXG63Ky7R00pbTD+dp9FdtGZ/hmxkhOP8+h8yeUQhOGV+7PtUeufDf gKHAA8ywxnGVFrPPCqh5cM2KsRVdMVb+9rlsu66jsjevhE9JpnuU3isP;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-5; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass (s ig from cisco.com/sjdkim5002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 963faf56c3a5b6715f0b71b66181e01a
Cc: baford@mit.edu, "'Kaushik Biswas (kbiswas)'" <kbiswas@cisco.com>, 'Pyda Srisuresh' <srisuresh@yahoo.com>, "'Senthil Sivakumar (ssenthil)'" <ssenthil@cisco.com>
Subject: [tcpm] WGLC draft-ietf-behave-tcp-04 completed
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
The WGLC of draft-ietf-behave-tcp-04 has completed, with no comments received. The document will be sent to IESG for their review. PROTO writeup is below. -d ----- PROTO (draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-09) writeup for: "NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP", http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-behave-tcp-04.txt (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Dan Wing The document has been reviewed and is ready for forwarding to IESG for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? During its development, the document has received input from members of the TCPM working group (especially Joe Touch and Fernando Gont), and that input was integrated into this document. The document had a two-week WGLC in both TCPM and BEHAVE working groups. There were no comments during this last call. The Document Shepherd has no concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? Additional review is not necessary. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. There have been a little concern that the TCP document normatively references the UDP document (draft-ietf-behave-nat-udp, soon to be published as RFC4787), because this requires reading both documents. WG consensus was to normatively reference UDP, as is done in the document. There is no IPR on this document. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The document has strong WG consensus. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) None indicated. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? The document hsa pre-Feb-2007 copyright, per idnits 1.124: - This document has ISOC Copyright according to RFC 3978, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. You should consider updating it; the new Copyright statement will be required from February 1st, 2007 - This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. You should consider updating it; the new disclaimer will be required from February 1st, 2007 (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. Yes, the document has split its references. There are two I-Ds cited as normative: * draft-ietf-behave-nat-icmp, which is not yet ready for advancement (it has not been WGLC'd). It is expected to be WGLC'd later this year. * draft-ietf-behave-nat-udp is in the RFC Editor's queue. There are no downward references. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? There are no IANA considerations for this specification; the document does not describe an Expert Review process. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? This document does not contain any such formal language. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document defines a set of requirements for NATs that handle TCP that would allow many applications, such as peer-to-peer applications and on-line games, to work consistently. Developing NATs that meet this set of requirements will greatly increase the likelihood that these applications will function properly. Working Group Summary This document was a product of the BEHAVE working group. Document Quality This document describes recommended practices for NATs. Most existing NATs already conform to these requirements. Personnel Dan Wing is the Document Shepherd, and Magnus Westerlund is the Responsible Area Director. _______________________________________________ tcpm mailing list tcpm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm