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

[Ballot comment]
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/

[Ballot comment]
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.

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

draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework-07.txt
Dan Wing, dwing@cisco.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?

This document has received significant review from the community.


  (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.  There was one complaint during WGLC that the document was too
long and suggested making it shorter.


          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 summarize 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
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html 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.

          If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

Intended Status:  Informational


  (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?

Yes.

          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 standards-track RFCs or to BEHAVE documents
being submitted to the IESG together, except ietf-behave-ftp64 which is
not yet ready for IESG.  We anticipate ietf-behave-ftp64 to be submitted
to IESG shortly.


  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
          Considerations 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?

Yes.

          Are the IANA registries clearly identified?

Yes.

          If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?

The document does not create a new IANA registry.

          Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

  (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 describes how the other five IPv6/IPv4 translation documents
fit together.


          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?

No.

          Document Quality
            Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

Yes.

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

Yes, at least 3.

            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?

Dan Wing, dwing@cisco.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.



  The Document Shepherd MUST send the Document Shepherd Write-Up to the
  Responsible Area Director and iesg-secretary@ietf.org together with
  the request to publish the document.  The Document Shepherd SHOULD
  also send the entire Document Shepherd Write-Up to the working group
  mailing list.  If the Document Shepherd feels that information which
  may prove to be sensitive, may lead to possible appeals, or is
  personal needs to be written up, it SHOULD be sent in direct email to
  the Responsible Area Director, because the Document Shepherd Write-Up
  is published openly in the ID Tracker.  Question (1.f) of the
  Write-Up covers any material of this nature and specifies this more
  confidential handling.