Advisory Guidelines for 6to4 Deployment
draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory-02

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2011-06-23)
No email
send info
Thank you for writing this.

Some minor comments: Section 5.2 could say something about using routing protocols between the gateway and the two routers.

Section 7.2 title has a typo.

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -)
No email
send info

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(David Harrington; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2011-06-21 for -)
No email
send info
I do not object to the publication of this document. However:

1. Though it is only a "informative" reference, I do wonder how dependent this document is on moving 6to4 to Historic in the minds of WG members. Maybe they are completely independent. But it is a concern, especially if the IETF decides to *not* move 6to4 to Historic.

2. The document says:

   Other advice applies to content providers and implementers, but this
   document does not discuss aspects that are mainly outside the scope
   of network operators...

I do wonder where that other information is going to be collected together for an overview of dealing with 6to4.

(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2011-06-22 for -)
No email
send info
Very nice document.  Thank you.

One small question...

After reading this sentence:

   In
   practice, there are few if any deployments of Router 6to4 following
   these recommendations.

I wonder if the author has any insight into how many deployments of
Router 6to4 are not following the recommendations in RFC 3056?

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2011-06-21 for -)
No email
send info
Very nicely written document.

I see that draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic also mentions
the 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa domain, but that's not mentioned at all
here. Should it be?

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2011-06-16 for -)
No email
send info
The document is clear and well-written.

Does it make sense at the end of Section 1 to mention that this is not a BCP but only Informational because of the fact that 6to4 is being made Historic in parallel?

Does this update 3056/3068, or does that not matter since they're going to be Historic?