Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation
RFC 6144

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(David Harrington) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

Comment (2010-08-04 for -)
No email
send info
The taxonomy of applications in Section 1.3 seems useful. However, the definition of P2P applications can be confusing. For example, SIP is classified as a P2P application and not as a client/server application . However, entities in SIP are called user agent clients, user agent servers, proxy servers, redirect servers, etc. Using a different term instead of P2P to classify those types of applications would make that section clearer. However, since this is not substantial to the draft, I leave it up to the authors whether or not to make this change.

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

(Tim Polk) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

Comment (2010-08-10 for -)
No email
send info
This is a well-written, clear document, useful reading to understand the other documents in the bucket.

A few non-blocking comments: 

1. It would be useful to expand acronyms at first ocurence - e.g. NAT-PT, AAAA record, A record, MTA, SIIT, etc. 

2. It would be useful to add the network management protocols (SNMP, NETCONF) and the AAA protocols (Diameter, RADIUS) in the examples of client-server protocols in section 1.3. Deployment of these protocols is one of the issues network operators encounter in the transition scenarios. 

3. At the begining of section 2 - s/translation solution/translation solutions/

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection