Stateless IP/ICMP Translation for IPv6 Internet Data Center Environments (SIIT-DC): Dual Translation Mode
draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-2xlat-02

[Ballot comment]
3.2.1: I don't quite get the last sentence, and it sounds
a bit like it might be somewhat hacky - can you explain
that some more to me? Thanks.

[Ballot comment]
A small editorial thing in the abstract:

  This document describes an extension of the Stateless IP/ICMP
  Translation for IPv6 Internet Data Centre Environments architecture
  (SIIT-DC), which allows applications, protocols, or nodes that are
  incompatible with IPv6, and/or Network Address Translation to operate
  correctly in an SIIT-DC environment.

With the comma after "IPv6", it looks like you mean this:

  which allows
  1. applications, protocols, or nodes that are
      incompatible with IPv6
  and/or
  2. Network Address Translation
  to operate correctly in an SIIT-DC environment.

...when what you mean is this:

  which allows applications, protocols, or nodes that are
  incompatible with
  1. IPv6
  and/or
  2. Network Address Translation
  to operate correctly in an SIIT-DC environment.

I suggest removing the comma.

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-2xlat-01.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (SIIT-DC: Dual Translation Mode) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops) to
consider the following document:
- 'SIIT-DC: Dual Translation Mode'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-09-22. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes an extension of the Stateless IP/ICMP
  Translation for IPv6 Internet Data Centre Environments architecture
  (SIIT-DC), which allows applications, protocols, or nodes that are
  incompatible with IPv6, and/or Network Address Translation to operate
  correctly in an SIIT-DC environment.  This is accomplished by
  introducing a new component called an SIIT-DC Edge Relay, which
  reverses the translations made by an SIIT-DC Border Relay.  The
  application and/or node is thus provided with seemingly native IPv4
  connectivity that provides end-to-end address transparency.

  The reader is expected to be familiar with the SIIT-DC architecture
  described in I-D.ietf-v6ops-siit-dc.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-2xlat/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-2xlat/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the
Document Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February
2012.

What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

  Informational. It is essentially a white paper describing how
  existing technologies including draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-eam may
  be deployed in an operational setting.

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

  This document describes an extension of the Stateless IP/ICMP
  Translation for IPv6 Internet Data Centre Environments architecture
  (SIIT-DC), which allows applications, protocols, or nodes that
  are incompatible with IPv6, and/or Network Address Translation
  to operate correctly in an SIIT-DC environment.  This is
  accomplished by introducing a new component called an SIIT-DC
  Edge Relay, which reverses the translations made by an SIIT-DC
  Border Relay.  The application and/or node is thus provided with
  seemingly native IPv4 connectivity that provides end-to-end
  address transparency.

  The reader is expected to be familiar with the SIIT-DC architecture
  described in I-D.ietf-v6ops-siit-dc.

  Working Group Summary

  The only real question was whether it belonged in the WG. The
  WG, in discussion, determined that it constituted an operational
  procedure comparable to 464xlat, and was therefore within charter.

  Document Quality

  The document describes something that is in fact implemented in
  at least four products from three vendors, and is in use in the
  author's networks and in other networks, as discussed at IETF
  93.

Personnel

  Fred Baker is the document shepherd. The AD is Joel Jaeggli.

Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.

  I have read the document and commented on it. As one of the
  authors of RFC 6145, which it builds on, I understand the
  technology pretty well.

Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No.

Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA,
DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization?

  Not really.

Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or
the IESG should be aware of?

  No

Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP
79 have already been filed.

  Yes

Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?

  No

How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?

  The working group clearly supports it.

Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent?

  No

Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.

  There are a couple of places where a defined address is used in
  accordance with the definition, and the RFC in question is
  identified.

Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

  Yes

Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?

  No

Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?

  No

Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs?

  No

Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body
qof the document.

  It is correct