|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
Best Current Practice RFC approved in April 2013.
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
RFC 6888 defines NAT requirements which are basically in scope of H.248.50.
|
|
4.
|
Current information, if any, about IPR issues:
|
|
|
Information on IPR issues regarding RFCs is available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/. Specifically: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=rfc_search&rfc_search=6888
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
Best Current Practice RFC approved April 2013. Updates RFC 4787.
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
Best Current Practice RFC approved April 2013.
|
|
7.
|
Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
|
|
|
Supersedes none.
|
|
8.
|
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
|
|
|
/
[RFC4008] Rohit, R., Srisuresh, P., Raghunarayan, R., Pai, N., and/
C. Wang, "Definitions of Managed Objects for Network/
Address Translators (NAT)", RFC 4008, March 2005./
/
[RFC4787] Audet, F. and C. Jennings, "Network Address Translation/
(NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP", BCP 127,/
RFC 4787, January 2007./
/
[RFC5382] Guha, S., Biswas, K., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and P./
Srisuresh, "NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP", BCP 142,/
RFC 5382, October 2008./
/
[RFC5508] Srisuresh, P., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and S. Guha, "NAT/
Behavioral Requirements for ICMP", BCP 148, RFC 5508,/
April 2009./
/
[RFC5597] Denis-Courmont, R., "Network Address Translation (NAT)/
Behavioral Requirements for the Datagram Congestion/
Control Protocol", BCP 150, RFC 5597, September 2009./
/
[RFC6887] Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and/
P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887,/
April 2013.
|
|
9.
|
Qualification of
ISOC/IETF:
|
|
|
9.1-9.6 Decisions of ITU Council to admit ISOC to participate in the work of the Sector (June 1995 and June 1996).
9.7 The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is responsible for ongoing maintenance of the RFCs when the need arises. Comments on RFCs and corresponding changes are accommodated through the existing standardization process.
9.8 Each revision of a given RFC has a different RFC number, so no confusion is possible. All RFCs always remain available on-line. An index of RFCs and their status may be found in the IETF archives at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html.
|
|
10.
|
Other (for any supplementary information):
|
|
|
None
|
|
