Subject: [Sipping] PROTO write-up draft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:06:34 -0500

PROTO questionnaire for: draft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios-13.txt

To be Published as: Best Current Practices

Prepared by: Mary Barnes ([email-masked]) on 22 June 2010

   (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?

Mary Barnes is the document shepherd.  She has reviewed this version
of the document and believes it is ready.

   (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?

Yes.  Five members (Francois Audet, Vijay Gurbani, Dan Wing, Ali
Keranen and Jerry Yin) of the WG have reviewed this document in
detail. In addition, area/cross-area reviews were done by Remi
Denis-Courmant (BEHAVE) and Philip Matthews (RAI area). Note, that
Francois Audet was later added as a co-author.
There are no concerns over the depth or breadth of the reviews.
Since the publication of the most recent version (well past WGLC), additional
editorial nits have been identified on the WG mailing list.  However, those can
be easily accommodated along with AD and IETF LC call comments and in some cases
are more appropriately handled by the RFC editor (e.g., consistency of terms).

   (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?
No.

   (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 are no specific concerns or issues. There is no IPR disclosure.

   (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?

There is WG consensus behind this document and no one has
expressed concerns about its progression.

   (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.)

No.

   (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?

Yes. The draft has been validated for nits using idnits 2.12.04. There
are some nits with regards to IPv4 addresses, but the values are
intentional.  The miscellaneous nits are not applicable/innocuous.

   (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 references are split.  There are no downward
references. There
is one normative reference that has not yet been published -
draft-ietf-sip-connect reuse.  However, that document is currently in AUTH48.

   (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?

Yes, there is an appropriate IANA section reflecting that this
document has no IANA considerations.

   (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?

There are no sections written in a formal language requiring validation.

   (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
             Traversal of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the
             sessions it establishes through Network Address Translators
             (NATs) is a complex problem.  Currently there are many deployment
             scenarios and traversal mechanisms for media traffic.
             This document aims to provide concrete recommendations and
             a unified method for NAT traversal as well as documenting
             corresponding flows.

          Working Group Summary
             The SIPPING WG supports the development and advancement of
             this document.

          Document Quality
             This document defines no new protocol elements.
             The document was thoroughly reviewed within the SIPPING WG.
             Francois Audet, Vijay Gurbani, Dan Wing, Ali Keranen and
             Jerry Yin provided detailed WG reviews of the document.
             In addition, area/cross-area reviews were done by
             Remi Denis-Courmant (BEHAVE/TSV area) and Philip Matthews
(RAI area).
             Dan Wing provided a final review ensuring that the technical
             details align with the more recently published BEHAVE WG
             documents (e.g., TURN)

          Personnel
             Mary Barnes is the WG chair shepherd. Robert Sparks is the
             responsible Area director.