(1) 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?
INFORMATIONAL. This is correct because the document does not describe new
protocols or bits on the wire. It also does not recommend best practices.
(2) 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 specifies the IPv4 service continuity requirements for
an IPv6 Customer Edge (CE) router, either provided by the service
provider or thru the retail market.
Specifically, this document extends the "Basic Requirements for IPv6
Customer Edge Routers" in order to allow the provisioning of IPv6
transition services for the support of "IPv4 as-a-Service" (IPv4aaS)
by means of new transition mechanisms. The document only covers
transition technologies for delivering IPv4 in IPv6-only access
networks, commonly called "IPv4 as-a-Service" (IPv4aaS), as required
in a world where IPv4 addresses are no longer available, so hosts in
the customer LANs with IPv4-only or IPv6-only applications or
devices, requiring to communicate with IPv4-only services at the
Internet, are still able to do so.
Working Group Summary:
There was broad consensus behind this document and no controversy.
Document Quality:
This document contains a competent overview and comparison of IPv4aaS
transition mechanisms. All of these mechanisms have been implemented by
multiple vendors.
Personnel:
Ron Bonica is the Document Shepherd. Warren Kumari is the Responsible Area
Director.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
I have read every word of this document. Coincidentally, I am doing a similar
comparison as part of my day job. Therefore, I am testing all but one of the
transition mechanisms mentioned in this document in the lab. (My employer
doesn't implement one of the mechanisms.)
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
No
(5) 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.
No
(6) 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? 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.
None
(7) 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
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? 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?
At least fifteen people have reviewed and commented on this document.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)
No
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
None. (The Nit-checker complains that there is no RFC 2119 language, but such
language is not required in this document.)
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
NA
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes
(14) 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 plan for their completion?
No
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so,
list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call
procedure.
No
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and
discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and
Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the
relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this
information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
No
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly
created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations
are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
RFC 5226).
This document requests that IANA add an existing option (113
OPTION_V6_PREFIX64) to the list of options permissible in the Option Codes
Permitted in the S46 Priority Option Registration. This is in compliance with
RFC 8026.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
None
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd
to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
None