Explicit Address Mappings for Stateless IP/ICMP Translation
draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-eam-03

[Ballot comment]
I have no issues with the publication of this draft, but want to point out that there an abundance of misuses of 2119 keywords.  Section 3.1 provides useful examples:

  An SIIT implementation MUST include an Explicit Address Mapping Table
  (EAMT).  By default, the EAMT SHOULD be empty.  The operator MUST be
  able to populate the EAMT using the implementation's normal
  configuration interfaces.  The implementation MAY additionally
  support other ways of populating the EAMT.

- How a SIIT implementation manages the mappings has no bearing on the functionality.  So, saying "MUST include an EAMT" is not needed.

- SHOULD be empty?  At what point? During implementation?

- Why "MUST be able to populate"?

[Ballot comment]
From Ron Bonica's OPS DIR review:
The Nit Checker says:

== There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC5735-compliant IPv4 addresses
    in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.

  == There are 3 instances of lines with non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6 addresses
    in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.

I understand why you had to break the rule for 0/0. But could the IPv6 addresses have been taken from documentation space?

[Ballot comment]
This document updates rfc6145, and it looks like the intent (from 3.3.1 and 3.3.2) is to replace whatever rfc6145 says with the outcome described, unless "no matching EAM entry is found".  Please be specific about which parts of rfc6145 are being replaced — 1-2 sentences in Section 3.3 should be enough.

Having said that, I am a little confused.  The Introduction says that "If no matching mapping exists, the [RFC6052] algorithm will be used instead.", but 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 both say that "If no matching EAM entry is found, the EAM algorithm is aborted.  The SIIT implementation MUST proceed to translate the address in accordance with [RFC6145]".  My confusion may be due to just not being familiar with the relationship between rfc6145 and rfc6052; please clarify.

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

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-eam-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:  (Explicit Address Mappings for Stateless IP/ICMP Translation) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops) to
consider the following document:
- 'Explicit Address Mappings for Stateless IP/ICMP Translation'
  as Proposed Standard

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 extends the Stateless IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm
  (SIIT) with an Explicit Address Mapping (EAM) algorithm, and formally
  updates RFC 6145.  The EAM algorithm facilitates stateless IP/ICMP
  translation between arbitrary (non-IPv4-translatable) IPv6 endpoints
  and IPv4.




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

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


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

What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why is this
the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the title
page header?

  This is listed as a Standards Track document. The reason is that
  it addresses an issue in RFC 6145, which is Proposed Standard,
  and in 6145bis, which will be proposed standard.

Document Announcement Write-Up

  Technical Summary

  This document extends the Stateless IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm
  (SIIT) with an Explicit Address Mapping (EAM) algorithm, and
  formally updates RFC 6145.  The EAM algorithm facilitates stateless
  IP/ICMP translation between arbitrary (non-IPv4-translatable)
  IPv6 endpoints and IPv4.

  Working Group Summary

  The only real issue raised in the working group was whether the
  document should go to a different one, based on the working group
  charter. The working group elected to address it, with the AD's
  concurrence, based on siit-dc and siit-dc-2xlat being an operational
  procedure and this being closely related, and the facts that
  behave is closed and softwire is closing.

  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, and Joel Jaeggli is the AD.

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

  I have read the document and run it through idnits. Note that
  idnits flags several uses of IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes, but the
  prefixes are being used as specified in RFC 6052 and other RFCs
  - and identifies the reference.

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? If so, describe the review
that took place.

  I don't think that is necessary.

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?

  I am confortable with the document.

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. If not, explain why.

  Yes.

Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?

  No

How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?

  Solid.

Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent?

  No

Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to
be thorough.

  As previously commented on -

  Note that idnits flags several uses of IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes,
  but the prefixes are being used as specified in RFC 6052 and
  other RFCs - and identifies the reference.

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?

  It updates 6145, and will be a companion to 6145bis.

Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section...

  it is correct