IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators
draft-ietf-behave-address-format-10

[Ballot discuss]
Very many appologies that my Discuss text got lost while I was travelling. I intended to write...

This document intends to Obsolete RFC 2765, but contains no significant referenc to that RFC. I don't think a lot of text is needed, but there should be some form of note to say what is going on.

[Ballot comment]
Minor comment ... the name "Well Known Prefix" seems underspecified; however, I can't suggest something terse that seems better.  Maybe "Well Known 64xlate Prefix"?

[Ballot comment]
The PL row in Figure 1 includes superfluous lengths 112 and 120 bits.  I would suggest:

OLD
    +--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    |PL| 0-------------32--40--48--56--64--72--80--88--96--104-112-120-|
    +--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

NEW
    +--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    |PL| 0-------------32--40--48--56--64--72--80--88--96--104----------|
    +--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

(2)
In the paragraph following figure 1:

s/prefic is 96 bits/prefix is 96 bits/

[Ballot discuss]
This is a DISCUSS DISCUSS:

I want to make sure that this document is consistent with [approved for publication] draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation.
Also, should the document be updated to use lowercased hex digits (as per Section 4.3 of draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation) in example addresses?

IANA comments:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
changes in the "Internet Protocol Version 6 Address Space" registry
located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space

OLD:

IPv6 Prefix Allocation Reference Note
----------- ---------------- ------------ ----------------
0000::/8 Reserved by IETF [RFC4291] [1][5]

NEW:

IPv6 Prefix Allocation Reference Note
----------- ---------------- ------------ ----------------
0000::/8 Reserved by IETF [RFC4291] [1][5][TBD]

[TBD] The "Well Known Prefix" 64:FF9B::/96 used in an algorithmic
mapping between IPv4 to IPv6 addresses is defined out of the
0000::/8 address block, per [RFC-ietf-behave-address-format-08].

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

draft-ietf-behave-address-format-05.txt
Dave Thaler (dthaler@microsoft.com)

      Has the
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
        document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
        version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? 

Yes.


(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
        and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
        any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
        have been performed?   

The document has had significant review within the WG.
I have no concerns about the depth or breadth of reviews.


(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
        e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
        AAA, internationalization or XML? 

No concerns.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
        issues 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.

No concerns.

        Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
        been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
        disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
        this issue. 

None.

(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?

Solid.

      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 WG has a good understanding of, and agreement with, this document.

(1.f) 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
        entered into the ID Tracker.) 

No such threats or appeals.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
        and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).

Yes

        Boilerplate checks are
        not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
        met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
        Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? 

The document does not specify a MIB, media type, or URI, and thus
does not need to meet those review criteria.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
        informative? 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
        strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
        that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
        so, list these downward references to support the Area
        Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. 

All normative references are to RFCs, with no downward references.

The document shepherd observed that idnits complains about the license:

  == You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from 12
    Sep 2009 rather than the newer Notice from 28 Dec 2009.  (See
    http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/)

however, the authors are using xml2rfc which does not support this
new license text.


(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
        of the document?

Yes

        If the document specifies protocol
        extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
        registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
        the document creates a new registry, does it define the
        proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
        procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
        reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
        document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
        conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
        can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? 

No registries or processes are created.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
        code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
        an automated checker? 

The document contains no such formal language.

(1.k) 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
        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.     

This document discusses the algorithmic translation of an IPv6
address to a corresponding IPv4 address, and vice versa, using only
statically configured information.  It defines a well-known prefix
for use in algorithmic translations, while allowing organizations to
also use network-specific prefixes when appropriate.  Algorithmic
translation is used in IPv4/IPv6 translators, as well as other types
of proxies and gateways (e.g., for DNS) used in IPv4/IPv6 scenarios.

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

This document represents the WG consensus that accommodates
different approaches for the different scenarios Behave was
chartered to solve.


Document Quality
        Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

This document is not a protocol, but there are implementations in
progress, e.g.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg08102.html

        Have a
        significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
        implement the specification?

Yes, several vendors are actively implementing 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?

They are listed in the document's acknowledgement section.

        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?

No such reviews were necessary.

Personnel
            Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

Dave Thaler, dthaler@microsoft.com

            Who is the
            Responsible Area Director?

Magnus Westerlund, magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com


            If the document requires IANA
            experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
            in this document are .'


The document doesn't require IANA experts.