Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation
draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework-10

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

Jari Arkko Yes

( David Harrington ) Yes

( Ron Bonica ) No Objection

( Stewart Bryant ) No Objection

( Gonzalo Camarillo ) No Objection

Comment (2010-08-04 for -)
The taxonomy of applications in Section 1.3 seems useful. However, the definition of P2P applications can be confusing. For example, SIP is classified as a P2P application and not as a client/server application . However, entities in SIP are called user agent clients, user agent servers, proxy servers, redirect servers, etc. Using a different term instead of P2P to classify those types of applications would make that section clearer. However, since this is not substantial to the draft, I leave it up to the authors whether or not to make this change.

( Ralph Droms ) No Objection

( Tim Polk ) No Objection

( Dan Romascanu ) No Objection

Comment (2010-08-10 for -)
This is a well-written, clear document, useful reading to understand the other documents in the bucket.

A few non-blocking comments: 

1. It would be useful to expand acronyms at first ocurence - e.g. NAT-PT, AAAA record, A record, MTA, SIIT, etc. 

2. It would be useful to add the network management protocols (SNMP, NETCONF) and the AAA protocols (Diameter, RADIUS) in the examples of client-server protocols in section 1.3. Deployment of these protocols is one of the issues network operators encounter in the transition scenarios. 

3. At the begining of section 2 - s/translation solution/translation solutions/

( Peter Saint-Andre ) No Objection

( spt ) No Objection