A Model of IPv6/IPv4 Dual Stack Internet Access Service
draft-shirasaki-dualstack-service-04

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, <iana@iana.org>, ietf-announce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Informational RFC to be: 
         draft-shirasaki-dualstack-service-05.txt 

The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'A Model of IPv6/IPv4 
Dual Stack Internet Access Service' 
<draft-shirasaki-dualstack-service-05.txt> as an Informational RFC. 

The IESG would also like the IRSG or RFC-Editor to review the comments in 
the datatracker 
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=10028&rfc_flag=0) 
related to this document and determine whether or not they merit 
incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot 
and the comment log. 

The IESG contact person is Margaret Wasserman.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shirasaki-dualstack-service-05.txt


The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html.

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

Ballot Text

Technical Summary
 
   This memo shows an example of how an ISP can provide IPv6 / IPv4
   dual stack services to home users.  

   This memo describes the user network interface specification of NTT
   communications' dual stack ADSL access service.

Working Group Summary
 
 This document is an RFC Editor independent submission.
 
Protocol Quality
 
 This document has been reviewed for the IESG by Thomas Narten.

RFC Editor Note

Please add the following  IESG note to the document:

      This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard.
      The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for
      any purpose and notes that the decision to publish is not based on
      IETF review apart from IESG review for conflict with IETF work.
      The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its
      discretion.  See RFC 3932 for more information.

RFC Editor Note