Mapping of Address and Port using Translation (MAP-T)
draft-ietf-softwire-map-t-08

[Ballot comment]
The document has undergone another Last Call regarding the IPR (which was previously declared on an earlier version of a document that had this specification as a part) and the IESG has discussed the change in status. I won't stand in the way of the document.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-softwire-map-t-08, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion.

While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Mapping of Address and Port using Translation (MAP-T)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Softwires WG (softwire) to
consider the following document:
- 'Mapping of Address and Port using Translation (MAP-T)'
  as Proposed Standard

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 2015-02-05. 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.

This last call is being re-issued because an IPR disclosure was
entered after the previous last call text was generated, and hence we
do not feel confident that the IPR disclosure was considered and had
consensus to proceed during last call.

Abstract


  This document specifies the "Mapping of Address and Port" stateless
  IPv6-IPv4 Network Address Translation (NAT64) based solution
  architecture for providing shared or non-shared IPv4 address
  connectivity to and across an IPv6 network.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map-t/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map-t/ballot/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2501/

[Ballot discuss]
I am holding a discuss on this document pending the outcome of the new IETF last call, which is expected to end on February 5 after the telechat.

[Ballot discuss]
These are strictly procedural issues for the IESG. I have glanced through the content of the document and have no reason to believe it is otherwise objectionable.

1. Several of the IESG comments on this document are for the -06 version of this document, which was put forward for Experimental status. This one is put forward for Proposed Standard, but comments haven't been updated. I would like the IESG to be clear what it is balloting on. Along similar lines, the ballot seems to be taken from the shepherd writeup, which is clearly a writeup for this document as Experimental. Probably the ballot should have been cleared and re-issued. But so long as we confirm on the call that nobody's position will have changed due to the status change, that's cool.

2. One the day of the latest Last Call, after the Last Call announcement was generated, there was an IPR Disclosure on this document by a participant in the WG. The Last Call announcement went out indicating that there were no IPR disclosures on the document. The WG participant who made the disclosure is also the listed inventor for both of the patents cited in the disclosure, and the disclosure is for a royalty-bearing license. This appears to me to be a horribly late disclosure. Did the WG discuss this disclosure?

3. I would like to hear some discussion of the abstentions now in light of the fact that the document is going for Proposed Standard. I understand that Brian's position is that the status of the document makes no difference to his assessment, but I'd like to hear from others on this point before I ballot No Objection.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-softwire-map-t-08, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: UPDATED Last Call:  (Mapping of Address and Port using Translation (MAP-T)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Softwires WG (softwire) to
consider the following document:
- 'Mapping of Address and Port using Translation (MAP-T)'
  as Proposed Standard

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 2014-12-29. 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


  This document specifies the "Mapping of Address and Port" stateless
  IPv6-IPv4 Network Address Translation (NAT64) based solution
  architecture for providing shared or non-shared IPv4 address
  connectivity to and across an IPv6 network.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map-t/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map-t/ballot/


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

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Mapping of Address and Port using Translation (MAP-T)) to Experimental RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Softwires WG (softwire) to
consider the following document:
- 'Mapping of Address and Port using Translation (MAP-T)'
  as Experimental 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 2014-12-29. 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


  This document specifies the "Mapping of Address and Port" stateless
  IPv6-IPv4 Network Address Translation (NAT64) based solution
  architecture for providing shared or non-shared IPv4 address
  connectivity to and across an IPv6 network.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map-t/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map-t/ballot/


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

[Ballot discuss]
I would like to request that the working group consider advancing this as a proposed standard rather than experimental.  We will do another last call in the working group to see if there is consensus for this.

[Ballot comment]
Several people, including a Gen-ART reviewer, have asked about the status designation. I think we have all read about the history of how we got here. I do not personally have an objection for upgrading the document (but of course that would require a new last call). Nor do I think the IESG or reviewers should have a strong opinion in the matter. However, I'd suggest that broad applicability and interest from the working group, in today's context, should be the deciding factor, if someone wants to make a change.

[Ballot comment]
Exactly like Adrian, I would like some more information on the Experimental status.
As examples:
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7360#section-1.3
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6614#section-1.3

I believe this should be common practice for experiemental RFCs.
Re-reading RFC 3933, and I don't see this.
Maybe an IESG statement ... ?



Editorial from Victor K. (OPS-DIR review):
Section 7.1

Paragraph 2:
old text “.. a CE requires an the IPv6 prefix to be assigned to the CE”
new text “.. a CE requires an IPv6 prefix to be assigned to the CE.”

Section 7.2

Paragraph 3:
old text “.. no specific routes need to be  advertised externally for MAPto operate, neither in IPv6 nor IPv4 BGP.”
new text “.. no specific IPv6 or IPv4 routes need to be advertised externally outside the service provider’s network for MAP to operate.”

I added this version of the sentence since it makes more sense to me.  Also, you technically don’t need BGP on the ISP side (although I can’t a modern network which does not use it).

[Ballot comment]
I don't specifically care to object to the publication of this document
and I don't feel strongly enough to abstain, but I do find it hard to
understand why it is being published even as experimental. It feels
to me like a consolation prize for not being the WG's selected
solution. Maybe it would have been better to pursue publication
either as an historic record of an idea not adopted, or as an
informational record of some existing implementation and
deployment. That way it would have been less confusing to the
market.

Anyway, given that it is positioned as an experimental RFC, I wish this
document explained why and how it is experimental in nature. It is not a
requirement to do this, but it would make a lot of sense.

- How is the Internet kept safe from the experiment?
- What feedback do you want from experimentation?
- How will you judge the success of the experiment?
- How do you plan to move the experiment to standards track?

[Ballot comment]
I don't specifically care to object to the publication of this document and
I don't feel strongly enough to abstain, but I do find it hard to understand
why it is being published even as experimental. It feels to me like a
consolation prize for not being the WG's selected solution. Maybe it
would have been better to pursue publication either as an historic
record of an idea not adopted, or as an informational record of some
existing implementation and deployment. That way it would have been
less confusing to the market.

Anyway, given that it is positioned as an experimental RFC, I wish this
document explained why and how it is experimental in nature. It is not a
requirement to do this, but it would make a lot of sense.

- How is the Internet kept safe from the experiment?
- What feedback do you want from experimentation?
- How will you judge the success of the experiment?
- How do you plan to move the experiment to standards track?

[Ballot comment]
I don't specifically care to object to the publication of this document and I don't
feel strongly enough to abstain, but I do find it hard to understand why it is
being published even as experimental. It feels to me like a consolation prize
for not being the WG's selected solution. Maybe it would have been better to
pursue publication either as an historic record of an idea not adopted, or as
an informational record of some existing implementation and deployment.
That way it would have been less confusing to the market.

Anyway, given that it is positioned as an experimental RFC, I wish this
document explained why and how it is experimental in nature. It is not a
requirement to do this, but it would make a lot of sense.

- How is the Internet kept safe from the experiment?
- What feedback do you want from experimentation?
- How will you judge the success of the experiment?
- How do you plan to move the experiment to standards track?

[Ballot comment]
I am balloting no objection on the grounds that this document has been reviewed
by the WG and the IETF community at large and apparently "passed" the last
calls in terms of having rough consensus.

However, the proposed solution looks personally to me like a big hack or in
other words this document is creating a cross IP version protocol address
translator (including using transport protocols). Actually, the whole work of
the softwire working group should be reconsidered from an architectural view.
Is this really the long term solution to get the IP transition right or is this
just creating the next headache in five years as something out of the
networking layer and the transport layer is mixed together as an IPv6 address?

[Ballot comment]
I find it a dis-service to the community for the softwire WG to put forth multiple solutions that solve essentially the same problem (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/jcscmIHmAQSvXLAlLLvfhnC2P8A).  I believe the confusion caused by a myriad of solutions in this space, regardless of whether they are Standards Track or Experimental, will adversely impact vendors, operators, and end-users.  My only hope is that this confusion will speed up the transition to IPv6-only operations within the affected networks.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-softwire-map-t-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion. 

While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Mapping of Address and Port using Translation (MAP-T)) to Experimental RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Softwires WG (softwire) to
consider the following document:
- 'Mapping of Address and Port using Translation (MAP-T)'
  as Experimental 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 2014-10-10. 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


  This document specifies the "Mapping of Address and Port" stateless
  IPv6-IPv4 Network Address Translation (NAT64) based solution
  architecture for providing shared or non-shared IPv4 address
  connectivity to and across an IPv6 network.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map-t/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map-t/ballot/


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

(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?

Experimental. This document defines a scheme used to provide residual
IPv4 service over IPv6 access networks. It achieves this by the use of
dual stateless NAT64 translators. The goal of the double translation
based solution is to reduce the overhead as well as to allow for
IPv6-only traffic classification.

(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 Mapping of Address and Port - Translation (MAP-T) is a double
stateless NAT64 based solution.  It builds on existing stateless NAT64
techniques specified in [RFC6145], along with the stateless
algorithmic address & transport layer port mapping scheme defined in
MAP-E.  The MAP-T solution differs from MAP-E in the use of IPv4-IPv6
translation, rather than encapsulation, as the form of IPv6 domain
transport.  The translation mode is considered advantageous in
scenarios where the encapsulation overhead, or IPv6 operational
practices rule out encapsulation.

Working Group Summary:

The working group had active discussion on the draft and the current
text of the draft is representative of the consensus of the working
group.

Document Quality:

The document has received adequate review. The Document Shepherd has
no concerns about the depth or breadth of these reviews. There are
several interoperable implementations of the scheme and they have been
demonstrated and tested during the IETF meetings.  Interoperability
test results have been documented in draft-xli-softwire-map-testing-04. 
Experiences from MAP-T Testing have been documented in
draft-cordeiro-softwire-experience-mapt-02. Some of the use cases have
been documented in draft-maglione-softwire-map-t-scenarios-04.

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Suresh Krishnan is the document shepherd. Ted Lemon is the responsible
AD.

(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 draft and finds that it is ready
to advance to the IESG. All issues that were raised in the working group
last calls have been addressed.

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

No. The document shepherd has no such concerns.

(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.

There is significant overlap between the stateless softwire
solutions. The WG has discussed this overlap and the current document
set (along with the tracks) are the result of working group consensus
to do so.

(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.

(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?

There is strong WG consensus behind this document.

(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.

No errors were found on the ID nits check.

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

N/A

(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 5226).

The document requires no IANA actions.

(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.

N/A

(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.

N/A