IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm
draft-bao-v6ops-rfc6145bis-07

Maybe just for my own edification..  Why is this not a WG document?  There was a WGLC made in v6ops, but no adoption.

The reference sections are oddly formatted.

Please see the SecDir review comments, Yoav found a few good nits that I don't think were addressed yet.
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06405.html

Thanks.

Just two questions on this specification.

I'm not understanding why 

   The stateless translator SHOULD support explicit address mapping
   algorithm defined in [RFC7757].

   The stateless translator SHOULD support [RFC6791] for handling ICMP/
   ICMPv6 packets.
   
are both SHOULDs. Could you help me understand why they aren't MUSTs?
   
I'm reading this text,

   Total Length:  If the Next Header field of the Fragment Header is not
      an extension header (except ESP) then Total Length MUST be set to
      Payload Length value from IPv6 header, minus length of extension
      headers up to Fragmentation Header, minus 8 for the Fragment
      Header, plus the size of the IPv4 header.  If the Next Header
      field of the Fragment Header is an extension header (except ESP)
      then the packet SHOULD be dropped and logged.
      
and, below that,

   Fragment Offset:  If the Next Header field of the Fragment Header is
      not an extension header (except ESP) then Fragment Offset MUST be
      copied from the Fragment Offset field of the IPv6 Fragment Header.
      If the Next Header field of the Fragment Header is an extension
      header (except ESP) then the packet SHOULD be dropped and logged.
      
and I'm wondering what to do with ESP. I THINK I know, but I'm guessing. Could you consider making this a bit clearer?

Good catch from Suresh wrt IPsec, I'd have missed that.

Thanks for addressing the concerns in my DISCUSS.

Boilerplate:
RFC6145 had a pre-5378 boilerplate but this draft does not. I just want to make sure that this was a conscious decision.