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 <pasi.sarolahti@xxxxxx> Responsible Area Director is Wesley Eddy <wes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>. (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")
