DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers
RFC 6147

Sectipon 5.1.1 and section 5.1.4 are inconsistent.
The proposal is to change the "MAY build an answer section" in 5.1.4
to "by default MUST build an answer section".
This proposal was taken to the WG for comment, and there were no objections to the change.
Since this is an editiorial change (since 5.1.1 remains the same), I am adding this RFC Editor Note.

section 5.1.4
OLD:
  If it receives an answer with at
  least one AAAA record containing an address outside any of the
  excluded range(s), then it MAY build an answer section for a response
  including only the AAAA record(s) that do not contain any of the
  addresses inside the excluded ranges.  That answer section is used in
  the assembly of a response as detailed in Section 5.4.
  Alternatively, it MAY treat the answer as though it were an empty
  answer, and proceed accordingly.  It MUST NOT return the offending
  AAAA records as part of a response.

NEW:
  When the DNS64 performs its initial AAAA query, if it receives an
  answer with only AAAA records containing addresses in the excluded
  range(s), then it MUST treat the answer as though it were an empty
.....................^^^^
  answer, and proceed accordingly.  If it receives an answer with at
  least one AAAA record containing an address outside any of the
  excluded range(s), then it by default SHOULD build an answer section
.................................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  for a response including only the AAAA record(s) that do not contain
  any of the addresses inside the excluded ranges.  That answer section
  is used in the assembly of a response as detailed in Section 5.4.
  Alternatively, it MAY treat the answer as though it were an empty
  answer, and proceed accordingly.  It MUST NOT return the offending
  AAAA records as part of a response.

[Ballot discuss]
I have some concerns regarding the impact on DNSSEC aware clients.  Is expecting these systems to be
translation-aware practical?  I noticed the writeup mentioned the need for the DNS directorate review, but my
review of the dns-dir archives did not turn up a review.  If the DNS directorate has reviewed  this document and
supports publication I will clear.

[Ballot discuss]
#1) This is not my area of expertise but idnits throws an error (actually these errors show up on more than one of the behave I-Ds on this weeks telechat):

** There are 10 instances of lines with non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6 addresses
    in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.

Shouldn't these be fixed?  Or if there are new prefixed shouldn't they be added to RFC 3849?

[Ballot discuss]
This is not my area of expertise but idnits throws an error:

** There are 10 instances of lines with non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6 addresses
    in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.

Shouldn't these be fixed?  Or if there are new prefixed shouldn't they be added to RFC 3849?

[Ballot comment]
Some minor nits:

#1) Sec 2: r/mode" ./mode".
#2) Sec 5.1.3: r/. ./.
#3) Sec 5.1.7:
3a) r/from the A record/from the A record.
3b) r/28 (AAAA)/28 (AAAA).
3c) r/to 16/to 16.
3d) r/([RFC2308]/([RFC2308]).
#4) Sec 7.1 & 7.2: r/h2.example.com/h2.example.com.
#5) Sec 7.1: r/is 64:FF9B::192.0.2.1/is 64:FF9B::192.0.2.1.

[Ballot discuss]
This is not my area of expertise but idnits throws an error:

** There are 10 instances of lines with non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6 addresses
    in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.

Shouldn't these be fixed?

  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

draft-ietf-behave-dns64-07.txt
Dan Wing, dwing@cisco.com

          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?

Yes.


  (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?

This document has received significant review from BEHAVE and DNSEXT.


  (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?

No concerns.


  (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.

There have been concerns that DNS64 can cause a dual-stack host to
prefer IPv6 connectivity (through a NAT64 translator) when direct
IPv4 connectivity was possible.  There are some non-WG drafts which
discuss workarounds for this situation.  However, BEHAVE's charter
item is for "IPv6-only" networks, which do not have dual-stack hosts,
so this current document is deemed to fit that charter description
and our existing milestone.


          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.

None.


  (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?

Solid.


          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?

The WG has a good understanding of, and agreement with, this document.


  (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarize 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.)

No such threats or appeals.


  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.)


Yes.

          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? 

The document does not specify a MIB, media type, or URI, and thus
does not need to meet those review criteria.

          If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

Intended Status:  Standards Track


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

Yes.

          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].

All normative references are to standards-track RFCs or Internet-Drafts.
The only Internet-Draft in the normative references,
draft-ietf-behave-address-format, is intended to be a Standards Track
document, and is being submitted to IESG along with
draft-ietf-behave-dns64.


The document shepherd observed that idnits complains about the license:

  == You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from
12
    Sep 2009 rather than the newer Notice from 28 Dec 2009.  (See
    http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/)

however, the authors are using xml2rfc which does not support this
new license text.


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

Yes.

          If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?

Yes.

          Are the IANA registries clearly identified?

Yes.

          If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?

The document does not create a new IANA registry.

          Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

  (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?

The document contains no such formal language.


  (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
            Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
            and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
            an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
            or introduction.


This document describes AAAA records are synthesized from an IPv4-only
server's A record, so that an IPv6-only client can use a NAT64 to
access an IPv4-only server.


          Working Group Summary
            Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
            For example, was there controversy about particular points
            or were there decisions where the consensus was
            particularly rough?

No.

          Document Quality
            Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

Yes,
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg08102.html

            Have a
            significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
            implement the specification?

Yes, several vendors are actively implementing the specification.


            Are there any reviewers that
            merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
            e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
            conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?

They are listed in the document's acknowledgement section.


            If
            there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
            what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
            Review, on what date was the request posted?

No such reviews were necessary.


          Personnel
            Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

Dan Wing, dwing@cisco.com

            Who is the
            Responsible Area Director?

Magnus Westerlund, magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com


            If the document requires IANA
            experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
            in this document are .'


The document doesn't require IANA experts.



  The Document Shepherd MUST send the Document Shepherd Write-Up to the
  Responsible Area Director and iesg-secretary@ietf.org together with
  the request to publish the document.  The Document Shepherd SHOULD
  also send the entire Document Shepherd Write-Up to the working group
  mailing list.  If the Document Shepherd feels that information which
  may prove to be sensitive, may lead to possible appeals, or is
  personal needs to be written up, it SHOULD be sent in direct email to
  the Responsible Area Director, because the Document Shepherd Write-Up
  is published openly in the ID Tracker.  Question (1.f) of the
  Write-Up covers any material of this nature and specifies this more
  confidential handling.