[tsvwg] Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp

[Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>]

This email contains the Shepherd Writeup requesting publication of 
Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Network Address Translation 
Support
, draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-22.

The editoirs responded quickly to my review and we are ready now to 
proceed. Please note: this moved to the normative sections, but did not 
change the developed yang model.

Thanks to everyone in the working group who contributed this during it's 
lengthy journey to final publication. Well done, the final version was 
easy to review and I am pleased to write this request to publish. If you 
have comments on the wrietup below let me know asap -  I'll place this 
in the tracker soon.

best wishes,

Gorry Fairhurst

(tsvwg co-chair, and shepherd for this ID).

=== template follows ===

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, 
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is 
this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title 
page header?

PS - This is a standards track specification. It describes the protocol 
extensions needed for the SCTP endpoints and the mechanisms for NAT 
functions necessary to provide similar features of NAPT in the single 
point and multipoint traversal scenario.

(2) 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:

The Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) provides a reliable 
communications channel between two end-hosts in many ways similar to the 
Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). With the widespread deployment of 
Network Address Translators (NAT), specialized code has been added to 
NAT functions for TCP that allows multiple hosts to reside behind a NAT 
function and yet share a single IPv4 address, even when two hosts 
(behind a NAT function) choose the same port numbers for their connection.

Working Group Summary:

This document started life as draft-stewart-behave-sctpnat in 2005, and 
was later added to the behave WG charter in 2013.. TSVWG inherited the 
work of the former behave WG when this concluded.  
draft-stewart-natsupp-tsvwg was brought to tsvwg and adopted in 2010.

The ID completes a series of specifications that specify how core IETF 
transports interact with NAT.  This work item was developed, but in 2015 
the specifications were rewritten to follow the current approach. The 
document was also restructured to more clearly separate the text for 
endpoint implementors and SCTP transport maintainers. In 2018, there was 
a discussion in the WG about whether to continue work on legacy support 
for NAT, and the working group concluded that this document should be 
published, and this was still in charter. The WG finally decided to add  
a yang model, which was developed separately and added to this spec in 
revision 16, in 2020. The WG is pleased that this long cycle of 
development has finally resulted in a complete and useful spec!

Document Quality:

This document has been reviewed in multiple rounds by the working group. 
It represents the current consensus of the WG.

The draft was updated following experience: FreeBSD contains the 
middlebox implementation based on an older version.

A YANG Doctor review, has been completed (draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-16) 
and the document was updated after finalising this model.

Personnel:
Gorry Fairhurst is the Document Shepherd

Magnus Westerlund is the Responsible Area Director

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by 
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for 
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the 
IESG.

This document has completed review by the TSVWG and is considered ready 
for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or 
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from 
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, 
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took 
place.

No

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd 
has 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.

RFCs published by the TSVWG can contain informative as well as normative 
sections. This is the case for many of the SCTP specifications, 
including this one.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR 
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes, no IPR is known - Irene, Michael, Randall.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If 
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR 
disclosures.

No IPR disclosures were observed for this or its predecessor drafts.

(9) 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 TSVWG LC progressed to a clear outcome. Issues were raised by 
interested parties and these were resolved post-WGLC. There is a 
consensus to publish this spec.

(10) 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 publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this 
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts 
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be 
thorough.

None.

Note this is about NAT, and therefore there are instances of lines with 
private range IPv4 addresses. The document is IPv4 only.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review 
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type 
reviews.

Yang review done (rev-16).

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either 
normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

No

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? 
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in 
the Last Call procedure.

No

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing 
RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the 
abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed 
in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of 
the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs 
is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why 
the WG considers it unnecessary.

No

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations 
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the 
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes 
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. 
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly 
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a 
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that 
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a 
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

IANA updates are noted.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future 
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful 
in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None - refers to existing registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document 
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal 
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

Yang review done.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked 
with any of the recommended validation tools 
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and 
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, 
what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the 
YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture 
(NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

OK.