Skip to main content

Framework for IP Version Transition Scenarios

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
02 (System) Notify list changed from, to (None)
02 (System) Document has expired
02 (System) State changed to Dead from AD is watching.
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6tran-framework-02.txt
02 Ron Bonica State changed to AD is watching from AD Evaluation.
02 Ron Bonica State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested.
02 Cindy Morgan
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he …
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? 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?

The document shepherd is Fred Baker. Yes, I believe that it is ready for IESG consideration.

(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?

The document was submitted as part of the v4v6tran effort last fall. The working group took a low opinion of most of the drafts in that context, but found value in this one. We have not had a lot of written comments, but verbal comments and the v6ops SurveyMonkey report from IETF-79 were very supportive.

(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?

Operations Directorate review may have value.

(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. 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.

No, I do not.

(1.e) 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?

There is general consensus as near as the chairs can determine.

(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)


(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
and 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?

It passes idnits, and yes it meets the formal review criteria.

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

The document contains only informative references, and calls them informative references.

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].


(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document?

Yes. It is.

(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?

All of the formal language it contains has been verified to be correct.

(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

This document sets out a framework for the presentation of scenarios
and recommendations for a variety of approaches to the transition
from IPv4 to IPv6, given the necessity for a long period of co-
existence of the two protocols.

Working Group Summary

This document was initially developed as part of the effort by various ISPs to consider IPv6 deployment and get information from the IETF on the topic in July-November 2010. It is in essence a document on how to write a document, and was generally felt by the IPv6 Operations Working Group during IETF-79 to be asking for useful information.

Document Quality

The questions asked are good ones. As to whether they are all of the questions that could be asked or might be considered - of course not. But the Working Group felt it was worthwhile.
02 Cindy Morgan Draft added in state Publication Requested
02 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'Fred Baker ( is the document shepherd.' added
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6tran-framework-01.txt
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6tran-framework-00.txt