Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) bis

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Technical Summary

   Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
   and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be 
   an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
   or introduction.

Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
   For example, was there controversy about particular points 
   or were there decisions where the consensus was
   particularly rough? 

Document Quality

   Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a 
   significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
   implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
   merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
   e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
   conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
   there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
   what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
   Review, on what date was the request posted?


   Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the 
   Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
   experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
   in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.'

RFC Editor Note

  (Insert RFC Editor Note here or remove section)


  (Insert IRTF Note here or remove section)


  When reviewing this document, you may wish to be aware that 
  the -00 version is essentially the same as RFC 3315, except
  that Appendix A is moved before the references, and there are
  lots of artifacts of the conversion to xml2rfc version 2.   So it is
  safe to look at the diff between -00 and the head to see what
  substantive changes were made since RFC 3315.


  (Insert IANA Note here or remove section)