Shepherd writeup
rfc8489-21

PROTO write up for draft-ietf-tram-stunbis-15:
[2018-01-20 Sat]

(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?
 
  Proposed Standard, as indicated on the front page of the draft.
 
(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:
 
   Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) is a protocol that
   serves as a tool for other protocols in dealing with Network
   Address Translator (NAT) traversal.  It can be used by an endpoint
   to determine the IP address and port allocated to it by a NAT.  It
   can also be used to check connectivity between two endpoints, and
   as a keep-alive protocol to maintain NAT bindings.  STUN works with
   many existing NATs, and does not require any special behavior from
   them.
 
   STUN is not a NAT traversal solution by itself.  Rather, it is a
   tool to be used in the context of a NAT traversal solution.
 
   In keeping with its tool nature, this specification defines an
   extensible packet format, defines operation over several transport
   protocols, and provides for two forms of authentication.

   This document obsoletes the original STUN specification RFC 5389.
 
Working Group Summary:
 
  The working group had a strong consensus around this draft.
 
Document Quality:
 
  The document quality is satisfactory.
  
Personnel:
 
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
 
  Tolga Asveren is the document shepherd.  Spencer Dawkins 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.
 
  The document shepherd has reviewed version 12 of the draft, provided
  comments. They have been discussed and satisfactorily addressed by
  version 13 of the draft. There also have been other reviews and all
  comments re addressed by version 14 of the draft and version 15
  contains changes for nits.
 
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
 
  No. There have been sufficient discussions in the past and during
  WGLC timeframe. There is also at least one implementation of the
  procedures defined in this draft.
 
(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 draft has sections pertaining to security, DNS and those are
  sufficiently reviewed.
 
(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.
 
  No concerns.
 
(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. All draft authors also acknowledged that they are not aware of
  any IPR associated with the changes introduced by 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?
 
  Strong consensus.
 
(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.

  The nits tool reports a few downrefs, which are addressed in the
  response to question 15 below. Other than that, there no remaining
  nits.
 
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
 
  No additional reviews are needed.
 
(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.
 
  Yes, and it is intentional.  The text using the reference for
  RFC3489 is for the explicit purpose of explaining the compatibility
  issues with that precise version of the protocol. That is the reason
  why RFC3489 instead of RFC5389, which obsoletes it, is used.

  RFC 1321 and RFC 2104 were already downrefs in RFC 5389, which this
  draft will obsolete.

(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.
 
  Yes, it will obsolete RFC5389. It defines procedures in addition to
  the ones defined in RFC5389. RFC5389 is the listed on the title page
  and abstract as to be obsoleted.
 
(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 IANA Considerations section registers new STUN Methods, updates
  and defines new STUN attributes, updates STUN error codes and
  updates the reference for STUN UDP/TCP port numbers. It also defines
  new STUN Security Features Registry/values, Password Algorithm
  Registry/values.
 
(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.
 
  New STUN Security Features and Password Algorithm Registries are
  defined. IANA experts specializing in security aspects would be
  suitable for reviewing these.
 
(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 document has a C snipped to determine STUN Message Types. The C
  code has been tried and it functions as intended.
 
Back