IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation
RFC 6296

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Document Action: 'IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation' to Experimental RFC (draft-mrw-nat66-15.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation'
  (draft-mrw-nat66-15.txt) as an Experimental RFC

This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.

The IESG contact person is Ron Bonica.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mrw-nat66/


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.

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? 

Document Quality

   Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a 
   significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
   implement 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?  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?

Personnel

   Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the 
   Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
   experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
   in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.'

RFC Editor Note

OLD:
   Note that, for reasons discussed in [RFC2993] and Section 5, the IETF
   does not generally recommend the use of Network Address Translation
   technology.

   This has several ramifications:

NEW:
   Note that, for reasons discussed in [RFC2993] and Section 5, the IETF
   does not generally recommend the use of Network Address Translation
   technology for IPv6. Where Network Address Translation is implemented,
   however, this specification provides a mechanism that has less architectural
   problems than merely implementing a traditional IPv4 NAT in an IPv6
   environment. Some problems remain, however, and the reader should consult
   Section 5, [RFC4864], and [RFC5902], for the implications and approaches
   that help avoid all types of NATs.

   The stateless approach described in this document has several ramifications: