Skip to main content

Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Network Address Translation Support
draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-23

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2022-04-28
23 (System) Document has expired
2021-10-25
23 Michael Tüxen New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-23.txt
2021-10-25
23 (System) New version approved
2021-10-25
23 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Irene Ruengeler , Michael Tuexen , Randall Stewart
2021-10-25
23 Michael Tüxen Uploaded new revision
2021-10-23
22 (System) Document has expired
2021-10-23
22 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2021-10-23
22 (System) IESG state changed to Dead from I-D Exists
2021-10-22
22 (System) Changed action holders to Martin Duke (IESG state changed)
2021-10-22
22 Martin Duke IESG state changed to I-D Exists from AD Evaluation
2021-09-09
22 Gorry Fairhurst
This document is being returned to the WG for a proposed resolution to post-WGLC comments and following discussion of these at the TSVWG Interim, Sept …
This document is being returned to the WG for a proposed resolution to post-WGLC comments and following discussion of these at the TSVWG Interim, Sept 2021. Once the proposed resolution is clear, the WG Chairs will re-evaluate the WGLC status and propose the next steps.
2021-09-09
22 Gorry Fairhurst Tag Revised I-D Needed cleared.
2021-09-09
22 Gorry Fairhurst IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from Submitted to IESG for Publication
2021-09-03
22 Gorry Fairhurst Added to session: interim-2021-tsvwg-02
2021-07-23
22 Gorry Fairhurst Added to session: IETF-111: tsvwg  Thu-1200
2021-06-17
22 Martin Duke IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2021-05-25
22 Gorry Fairhurst Revised ID following invited review.
2021-05-25
22 Gorry Fairhurst Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG set. Tag Revised I-D Needed cleared.
2021-04-22
22 (System) Changed action holders to Randall Stewart, Michael Tüxen, Irene Ruengeler (IESG state changed)
2021-04-22
22 Martin Duke IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2021-03-09
22 Magnus Westerlund Shepherding AD changed to Martin Duke
2020-11-24
22 Magnus Westerlund IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2020-11-18
22 Gorry Fairhurst
Document  Shepherd Write-Up.

1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper …
Document  Shepherd Write-Up.

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?

PS - This is a standards track specification. It describes the protocol extensions needed for the SCTP endpoints and the mechanisms for NAT functions necessary to provide similar features of NAPT in the single point and multipoint traversal scenario.

(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 Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) provides a reliable communications channel between two end-hosts in many ways similar to the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). With the widespread deployment of Network Address Translators (NAT), specialized code has been added to NAT functions for TCP that allows multiple hosts to reside behind a NAT function and yet share a single IPv4 address, even when two hosts (behind a NAT function) choose the same port numbers for their connection.

Working Group Summary:

This document started life as draft-stewart-behave-sctpnat in 2005, and was later added to the behave WG charter in 2013.. TSVWG inherited the work of the former behave WG when this concluded.  draft-stewart-natsupp-tsvwg was brought to tsvwg and adopted in 2010.

The ID completes a series of specifications that specify how core IETF transports interact with NAT.  This work item was developed, but in 2015 the specifications were rewritten to follow the current approach. The document was also restructured to more clearly separate the text for endpoint implementors and SCTP transport maintainers. In 2018, there was a discussion in the WG about whether to continue work on legacy support for NAT, and the working group concluded that this document should be published, and this was still in charter. The WG finally decided to add  a yang model, which was developed separately and added to this spec in revision 16, in 2020. The WG is pleased that this long cycle of development has finally resulted in a complete and useful spec!

Document Quality:

This document has been reviewed in multiple rounds by the working group. It represents the current consensus of this WG.

A YANG Doctor review, has been completed (draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-16) and the document was updated after finalising this model.

Personnel:
Gorry Fairhurst is the Document Shepherd
Magnus Westerlund 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.

This document has completed review by the TSVWG and is considered ready for publication.
The draft was updated following experience: FreeBSD contains the middlebox implementation based on an older version.

(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.

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.

RFCs published by the TSVWG can contain informative as well as normative sections. This is the case for many of the SCTP specifications, including this one.

(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, no IPR is known - Irene, Michael, Randall.

(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 were observed for this or its predecessor drafts.

(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 TSVWG LC progressed to a clear outcome. Issues were raised by interested parties and these were resolved post-WGLC. There is a consensus to publish this spec.

(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.

None.

Note this is about NAT, and therefore there are instances of lines with private range IPv4 addresses. The document is IPv4 only.

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

Yang review done (rev-16).

(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 8126).

IANA updates are noted.

(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.

None - it refers to existing SCTP registries.

(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, YANG modules, etc.

Yang review done.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

OK.
2020-11-18
22 Gorry Fairhurst IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2020-11-18
22 Gorry Fairhurst IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2020-11-18
22 Gorry Fairhurst IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2020-11-18
22 Gorry Fairhurst Tag Other - see Comment Log cleared.
2020-11-18
22 Gorry Fairhurst
Document  Shepherd Write-Up.

1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper …
Document  Shepherd Write-Up.

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?

PS - This is a standards track specification. It describes the protocol extensions needed for the SCTP endpoints and the mechanisms for NAT functions necessary to provide similar features of NAPT in the single point and multipoint traversal scenario.

(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 Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) provides a reliable communications channel between two end-hosts in many ways similar to the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). With the widespread deployment of Network Address Translators (NAT), specialized code has been added to NAT functions for TCP that allows multiple hosts to reside behind a NAT function and yet share a single IPv4 address, even when two hosts (behind a NAT function) choose the same port numbers for their connection.

Working Group Summary:

This document started life as draft-stewart-behave-sctpnat in 2005, and was later added to the behave WG charter in 2013.. TSVWG inherited the work of the former behave WG when this concluded.  draft-stewart-natsupp-tsvwg was brought to tsvwg and adopted in 2010.

The ID completes a series of specifications that specify how core IETF transports interact with NAT.  This work item was developed, but in 2015 the specifications were rewritten to follow the current approach. The document was also restructured to more clearly separate the text for endpoint implementors and SCTP transport maintainers. In 2018, there was a discussion in the WG about whether to continue work on legacy support for NAT, and the working group concluded that this document should be published, and this was still in charter. The WG finally decided to add  a yang model, which was developed separately and added to this spec in revision 16, in 2020. The WG is pleased that this long cycle of development has finally resulted in a complete and useful spec!

Document Quality:

This document has been reviewed in multiple rounds by the working group. It represents the current consensus of this WG.

A YANG Doctor review, has been completed (draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-16) and the document was updated after finalising this model.

Personnel:
Gorry Fairhurst is the Document Shepherd
Magnus Westerlund 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.

This document has completed review by the TSVWG and is considered ready for publication.
The draft was updated following experience: FreeBSD contains the middlebox implementation based on an older version.

(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.

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.

RFCs published by the TSVWG can contain informative as well as normative sections. This is the case for many of the SCTP specifications, including this one.

(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, no IPR is known - Irene, Michael, Randall.

(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 were observed for this or its predecessor drafts.

(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 TSVWG LC progressed to a clear outcome. Issues were raised by interested parties and these were resolved post-WGLC. There is a consensus to publish this spec.

(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.

None.

Note this is about NAT, and therefore there are instances of lines with private range IPv4 addresses. The document is IPv4 only.

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

Yang review done (rev-16).

(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 8126).

IANA updates are noted.

(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.

None - it refers to existing SCTP registries.

(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, YANG modules, etc.

Yang review done.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

OK.
2020-11-16
22 Michael Tüxen New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-22.txt
2020-11-16
22 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Michael Tüxen)
2020-11-16
22 Michael Tüxen Uploaded new revision
2020-11-02
21 Gorry Fairhurst Draft has been revised after WGLC comments. This is now with the Document Shepherd.
2020-11-02
21 Gorry Fairhurst Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG cleared.
2020-11-02
21 Gorry Fairhurst IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead
2020-11-01
21 Michael Tüxen New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-21.txt
2020-11-01
21 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Michael Tüxen)
2020-11-01
21 Michael Tüxen Uploaded new revision
2020-10-30
20 Gorry Fairhurst Removed from session: IETF-109: tsvwg  Wed-1430
2020-10-30
20 Gorry Fairhurst Added to session: IETF-109: tsvwg  Wed-1430
2020-10-30
20 Gorry Fairhurst Added to session: IETF-109: tsvwg  Mon-1600
2020-09-16
20 Gorry Fairhurst
To complete the process...
The WGLC has completed.
The chairs saw responses to the WGLC that supported progression and no notes that recorded reasons to …
To complete the process...
The WGLC has completed.
The chairs saw responses to the WGLC that supported progression and no notes that recorded reasons to not proceed.
There were issues that need to be cleared for this document to progrees, and the editors now need to respond to or resolve these issues in a new revision.
2020-09-16
20 Gorry Fairhurst Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG set.
2020-09-16
20 Gorry Fairhurst IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call
2020-08-01
20 Gorry Fairhurst WGLC issued to tsvwg (using the corrected text) to CONCLUDE 22nd Aug 2020.
2020-08-01
20 Gorry Fairhurst
Hi all,

This email starts the WGLC for
"Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Network Address Translation Support"

The intended status is a Standards Track RFC. …
Hi all,

This email starts the WGLC for
"Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Network Address Translation Support"

The intended status is a Standards Track RFC.
The current version of the document can be found at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp/

Please review the latest version and please let us know any comments or suggestions. TSVWG needs reviews to ensure that the content is ready to move forward. Feedback supporting publication ("+1") is also very welcome.

Thanks

Gorry, on behalf of the TSVWG chairs
2020-08-01
20 Gorry Fairhurst
Hi all,

The document "TCP Control Block Interdependence" (draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis) is out there for a quite some time already. Given that there has been …
Hi all,

The document "TCP Control Block Interdependence" (draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis) is out there for a quite some time already. Given that there has been a bit less activity on the list after the interim, let's use this opportunity to finish one of our milestones...

This e-mail starts a WGLG for the document draft-ietf-tcpm-2140bis. The WGLC will run until ***June 14***.

The intended status is a Standards Track RFC.
The current version of the document can be found at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp/

Please review the latest version and please let us know any comments or suggestions. TSVWG needs reviews to ensure that the content is ready to move forward. Feedback supporting publication ("+1") is also very welcome.

Thanks

Gorry, on behalf of the TSVWG chairs
2020-08-01
20 Gorry Fairhurst IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2020-07-28
20 Michael Tüxen New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-20.txt
2020-07-28
20 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Michael Tüxen)
2020-07-28
20 Michael Tüxen Uploaded new revision
2020-07-28
19 Gorry Fairhurst Added to session: IETF-108: tsvwg  Tue-1410
2020-07-28
19 Michael Tüxen New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-19.txt
2020-07-28
19 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Michael Tüxen)
2020-07-28
19 Michael Tüxen Uploaded new revision
2020-07-28
18 Michael Tüxen New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-18.txt
2020-07-28
18 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Michael Tüxen)
2020-07-28
18 Michael Tüxen Uploaded new revision
2020-07-13
17 Michael Tüxen New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-17.txt
2020-07-13
17 (System) New version approved
2020-07-13
17 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Tuexen , Randall Stewart , Irene Ruengeler
2020-07-13
17 Michael Tüxen Uploaded new revision
2020-04-02
16 Radek Krejčí Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Radek Krejčí. Sent review to list.
2020-03-21
16 Mehmet Ersue Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Radek Krejčí
2020-03-21
16 Mehmet Ersue Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Radek Krejčí
2020-03-20
16 Gorry Fairhurst Document needs offers to review to proceed to WGLC.
The document has been submitted for early review of the YANG module.
2020-03-20
16 Gorry Fairhurst Tag Other - see Comment Log set.
2020-03-20
16 Gorry Fairhurst Requested Early review by YANGDOCTORS
2020-03-09
16 Michael Tüxen New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-16.txt
2020-03-09
16 (System) New version approved
2020-03-09
16 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Irene Ruengeler , Michael Tuexen , Randall Stewart
2020-03-09
16 Michael Tüxen Uploaded new revision
2019-11-17
15 Michael Tüxen New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-15.txt
2019-11-17
15 (System) New version approved
2019-11-17
15 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Randall Stewart , Michael Tuexen , Irene Ruengeler
2019-11-17
15 Michael Tüxen Uploaded new revision
2019-11-04
14 Michael Tüxen New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-14.txt
2019-11-04
14 (System) New version approved
2019-11-04
14 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Randall Stewart , Michael Tuexen , Irene Ruengeler
2019-11-04
14 Michael Tüxen Uploaded new revision
2019-07-21
13 Magnus Westerlund IESG state changed to I-D Exists from Dead
2019-07-21
13 Magnus Westerlund Shepherding AD changed to Magnus Westerlund
2019-07-08
13 Michael Tüxen New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-13.txt
2019-07-08
13 (System) New version approved
2019-07-08
13 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Randall Stewart , Michael Tuexen , Irene Ruengeler
2019-07-08
13 Michael Tüxen Uploaded new revision
2019-01-03
12 (System) Document has expired
2018-07-19
12 David Black Added to session: IETF-102: tsvwg  Thu-1810
2018-07-19
12 David Black Removed from session: IETF-102: tsvwg  Thu-1550
2018-07-19
12 David Black Added to session: IETF-102: tsvwg  Thu-1550
2018-07-02
12 Michael Tüxen New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-12.txt
2018-07-02
12 (System) New version approved
2018-07-02
12 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Randall Stewart , Michael Tuexen , Irene Ruengeler
2018-07-02
12 Michael Tüxen Uploaded new revision
2018-03-21
11 Gorry Fairhurst Added to session: IETF-101: tsvwg  Thu-1810
2018-01-04
11 (System) Document has expired
2017-07-18
11 David Black Added to session: IETF-99: tsvwg  Thu-1810
2017-07-03
11 Michael Tüxen New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-11.txt
2017-07-03
11 (System) New version approved
2017-07-03
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Randall Stewart , Michael Tuexen , Irene Ruengeler
2017-07-03
11 Michael Tüxen Uploaded new revision
2017-03-13
10 Michael Tüxen New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-10.txt
2017-03-13
10 (System) New version approved
2017-03-13
10 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: =?utf-8?q?Michael_T=C3=BCxen?= , Randall Stewart , Irene Ruengeler , tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org
2017-03-13
10 Michael Tüxen Uploaded new revision
2016-11-23
09 David Black Added to session: IETF-97: tsvwg  Wed-1110
2016-11-23
09 David Black Notification list changed to "Gorry Fairhurst" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
2016-11-23
09 David Black Document shepherd changed to Gorry Fairhurst
2016-11-19
09 (System) Document has expired
2016-05-18
09 Michael Tüxen New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-09.txt
2016-01-06
08 (System) Document has expired
2015-12-21
08 David Black This document now replaces draft-stewart-natsupp-tsvwg, draft-ietf-behave-sctpnat instead of None
2015-10-14
08 (System) Notify list changed from tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp@ietf.org to (None)
2015-07-05
08 Michael Tüxen New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-08.txt
2015-02-25
07 Michael Tüxen New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-07.txt
2014-03-13
06 (System) Document has expired
2013-09-09
06 Michael Tüxen New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-06.txt
2013-08-29
05 (System) Document has expired
2013-08-29
05 (System) State changed to Dead from AD is watching
2013-05-20
05 Cindy Morgan Shepherding AD changed to Spencer Dawkins
2013-03-06
05 Martin Stiemerling State changed to AD is watching from Dead
2013-02-25
05 Michael Tüxen New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-05.txt
2012-10-21
04 Michael Tüxen New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-04.txt
2012-10-09
03 Randall Stewart New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-03.txt
2012-09-13
02 (System) Document has expired
2012-09-13
02 (System) State changed to Dead from AD is watching
2012-07-23
02 Martin Stiemerling Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard
2012-07-23
02 Martin Stiemerling IESG process started in state AD is watching
2012-03-12
02 Michael Tüxen New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-02.txt
2011-12-03
01 (System) Document has expired
2011-06-01
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-01.txt
2010-11-30
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-00.txt