Hi,
I just requested publication of the dccp-udpencap draft. The write-up is shown
below. Many thanks to Tom, Gorry and Colin for the hard work on the draft, and
of course to everyone who reviewed it along the way!
- Pasi
-------------
(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?
This document is requested to be published as Proposed
Standard. It specifies the mechanism for encapsulating DCCP headers
in UDP datagrams, and does not outline an experiment. The type
is properly indicated in the header.
(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 document specifies a mechanism to encapsulate DCCP packets
in UDP datagrams, to support NAT traversal through devices
that do not support DCCP natively. It also discusses various
interactions related to encapsulation, such as those related
to MTU discovery or ECN processing, and interactions with
higher level protocols.
Working Group Summary
The DCCP working group has been generally supportive of the
document. It went through three working group last calls;
starting on August 2010, February 2011, and April 2012. All
WGLCs have been forwarded also to TSVWG working group, and the
second WGLC was announced in MMUSIC working group. During the
first WGLC, various technical fixes were proposed. The second
WGLC proposed integration with NAT traversal signaling
solutions such as ICE. However, specifying this was
considered to be a significant effort, and not within DCCP WG's
expertise, so it was decided that these interactions will be
specified in a separate document. The third WGLC on the
current version of the document was concluded without
comments. Given all these iterations and cross-WG review, the
shepherd thinks the document has gone through a good review.
Document Quality
As indicated above, the document went through a cross-WG
review with TSVWG and MMUSIC WGs. Some individual
implementation prototypes of the earlier version of the
specification have been made, but at the moment no
implementation activities on this specification are known.
Personnel
Document Shepherd is Pasi Sarolahti <[email protected]>
Responsible Area Director is Wesley Eddy <[email protected]>.
(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.
The document shepherd has reviewed the latest version of the
document and thinks the document is 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.
The document was reviewed by TSVWG, because it proposes using
UDP and therefore involves general transport area
consideration. The document was reviewed by MMUSIC, because it
contains section on SDP signaling.
(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.
There are no concerns with the current version of the document.
(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.
(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 have been filed for this document.
(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 DCCP working group (although being a small community these
days) has been supportive for this document throughout its
progress.
(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.
There was normative reference to one obsolete document (RFC
4234), and three unused references. Otherwise the ID nits tool
was happy with the document.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Section 5 contains two small ABNF definitions for signaling
DCCP-UDP in SDP. These have been reviewed along with normal
document review.
(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 (apart from the one reference to document that has been
replaced by later document, as indicated above)
(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 5226).
The document makes three additions to IANA registries: new UDP
port, new DCCP Reset code, and new SDP attribute type. These
are clearly indicated in the document and in a separate IANA
considerations section using specific markup. No new IANA
registries are needed.
(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.
No new IANA registries are needed.
(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, etc.
The ABNF sections were checked with "Bill's ABNF Parser"
[http://tools.ietf.org/tools/bap], that concluded they were
ok (apart of wanting "%x6d" to be upper case "%x6D")
