Analysis of Solution Proposals for Hosts to Learn NAT64 Prefix
draft-ietf-behave-nat64-learn-analysis-03

[Ballot comment]
I'm sure Wes saw that Jouni agreed to some additional text based on Sam Weiler jumping in with Alexey - https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg03250.html - so this is just a reminded to include the text.

[Ballot comment]
Just a small thing:

Section 4, third bullet:
Is this an attempt to avoid references to "work in progress"?  There's no need to avoid it, and I'd rather see the references.  Just make them informative, and they won't block this document.  If they're dead (or dying) I-Ds that won't be completed, I'd still like to see the names (not just the titles) so I can find them in the archives.  The same goes for Brian Carpenter's "referrals" draft, which you refer to later in that section, and other drafts mentioned in other sections.

[Ballot comment]
Suggesting that elements hard-code an IPv4 address (see section 5.1.1) is perilous, and the draft referenced in that section doesn't seem to support the notion. Why is this suggestion here? Could it be removed?

[Ballot comment]

Basically I've a bunch of nits for what seems like a good piece
of documentation.

- There are a good few nitty few English language issues, too many to list
now. Better if those were fixed before the RFC editor has to do it.

- section 3, issue 3 - what does "implementing DNS" mean? Which kinds of
DNS node, stub resolver, recursive resolver,...

- section 4, calling RFC 6144 "The" framework document seems a bit
generic, suggest using the full title.

- section 4, are there cases where a host can't distinguish which of the
6144 scenarios apply that might confuse matters here? Not sure.

- section 4, is "IPv6 connection" the right term?

- Why are there no references for a bunch of I-Ds named here?  Its ok to
add informative references even to expired drafts IMO, (I wonder if
others disagree;-)

- There were changes agreed based on the secdir review. [1] Some of those
may overlap with the above (sorry, didn't have time to check properly)

  [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg03233.html

[Ballot comment]
This is a reasonable complete assessment of the problem space.  I only have some comments/suggestions to put forth:

1. In paragraph 5 of section 1, I would suggest changing "... analyses all known solution proposals known ..." to "... analyzes all proposed solutions known ...".

2. In section 2, you reference WKP before you define the acronym.

3. I see several uses of the noun "analyses" used as a verb.  I suggest you change those to "analyzes".

4. Section 4 has an expansion of WKP that is redundant with the expansion done earlier in section 2.

5. Throughout most of the solution description sub-sections, drafts are called out by name and author(s) without a direct reference.  Is this being done simply to avoid having to publish those drafts?

6. Section 5.3 is an almost duplication of Section 5.2, only the summary is different.

7. In 5.6.1, the acronyms ASM and SSM are used without expansion or context.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG

To: IETF-Announce

CC:

Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org

Subject: Last Call:  (Analysis of solution proposals for hosts to learn NAT64 prefix) to Informational RFC





The IESG has received a request from the Behavior Engineering for

Hindrance Avoidance WG (behave) to consider the following document:

- 'Analysis of solution proposals for hosts to learn NAT64 prefix'

  as an Informational RFC



The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits

final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the

ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-03-22. Exceptionally, comments may be

sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the

beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.



Abstract





  Hosts and applications may benefit from the knowledge if an IPv6

  address is synthesized, which would mean a NAT64 is used to reach the

  IPv4 network or Internet.  This document analyses a number of

  proposed solutions for communicating whether the synthesis is taking

  place, used address format, and the IPv6 prefix used by the NAT64 and

  DNS64.  The solutions enable both NAT64 avoidance and intentional

  utilization by allowing local IPv6 address synthesis.  The document

  concludes by recommending selection of heuristic discovery based

  solution.









The file can be obtained via

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-nat64-learn-analysis/



IESG discussion can be tracked via

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-nat64-learn-analysis/ballot/





No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation.
AD Review of draft-ietf-behave-nat64-learn-anaysis-02

Overall, I found the document to be well-written. However, this document is not ready for publication. The are a few minor editorial issues, and one major problem.

1) this document is going to be a problem, in that it is a survey of documents, many of which may never be published as RFCs. This document discusses the contents of these documents, and often has references to sections within these other documents. The references and the need to understand the other documents' contents make these normative references. This document cannot be published as long as there are normative documents that have not been published in stable form.

To address this problem, all references to internet-drafts that are not chartered should be removed from this document. This can be accomplished by discussing the problem and solution of each proposal in general terms, and not referencing the non-WG documents that provide further details.

I am discussing this problem with the behave WG chairs.

2) NSP needs expansion on first use.
3) How is your terminology section organized? It is not obvious ot me, and makes looking up a term more difficult. The preferred method is to make things alphabetical, so lookup is easy. However, you not only have terminology but also assumptions embedded in this one section. It would probably be better if you broke terminology and assumptions into separate sections.
4) 4.5.1 has a (TBD IANS registered?) note
5) 4.5.2 has an editor's note
6) Comment: The grammar in this document leaves a bit to be desired. There are sentences that are obviously missing words, such as "until finds", "due the impact". There are sentences with mismatched plurality between articles and nouns, such as "a well-known names", "an attachment time signaling protocols". I usually allow such things to slide by knowing the RFC EDitor will catch them, but when there are multiple grammatical errors in a document, this makes me question how thoroughly this document was reviewed by the WG before submission. Running this through a grammar checker would likely be helpful.
7) 4.9.3 "However, generally introducing any
  changes to the link/lower layers is a long and slow router, and yet
  is access technology/system specific." should this be "a long and slow process"?
I have difficulty understanding the "yet" in this sentence.

  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

document: draft-ietf-behave-nat64-learn-analysis-01
shepherd: Dan Wing, dwing@cisco.com

          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?
Yes.


  (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, sufficient review has been performed. 


  (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 concerns.


  (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.

No concerns.

There are no IPR disclosures against 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?

This document analyzies how well BEHAVE's NAT64 documents resolve
the problems described in RFC4966 (which deprecated NAT-PT). 

Consensus is fairly solid.



  (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarize 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 significant conflict with this document has occurred.



  (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?

No such reviews are needed.

          If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

Intended status:  Informational


  (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, all references are split.


  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
          Considerations 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 the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

This document does not need any IANA action.


  (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 is nothing in this document defined in a 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
            Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
            and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
            an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
            or introduction.

  Hosts and applications may benefit from the knowledge if an IPv6
  address is synthesized, which would mean a NAT64 is used to reach the
  IPv4 network or Internet.  This document analyses a number of
  proposed solutions for communicating whether the synthesis is taking
  place, used address format, and the IPv6 prefix used by the NAT64 and
  DNS64.  The solutions enable both NAT64 avoidance and intentional
  utilization by allowing local IPv6 address synthesis.  The document
  concludes by recommending selection of heuristic discovery based
  solution.




          Working Group Summary
            Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
            For example, was there controversy about particular points
            or were there decisions where the consensus was
            particularly rough?

Concern was raised that we should define a new DNS resource record to
retrieve this information, rather than confluding we should do a
heuristic.  The document explains why the working group reached the
conslusion to do a heuristic.


          Document Quality
            Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
            significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
            implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
            merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
            e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
            conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
            there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
            what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
            Review, on what date was the request posted?

          Personnel
            Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
            Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
            experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
            in this document are .'

shepherd:  Dan Wing
responsible AD:  David Harrington



  The Document Shepherd MUST send the Document Shepherd Write-Up to the
  Responsible Area Director and iesg-secretary@ietf.org together with
  the request to publish the document.  The Document Shepherd SHOULD
  also send the entire Document Shepherd Write-Up to the working group
  mailing list.  If the Document Shepherd feels that information which
  may prove to be sensitive, may lead to possible appeals, or is
  personal needs to be written up, it SHOULD be sent in direct email to
  the Responsible Area Director, because the Document Shepherd Write-Up
  is published openly in the ID Tracker.  Question (1.f) of the
  Write-Up covers any material of this nature and specifies this more
  confidential handling.