Advisory Guidelines for 6to4 Deployment
RFC 6343
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes
Thank you for writing this. Some minor comments: Section 5.2 could say something about using routing protocols between the gateway and the two routers. Section 7.2 title has a typo.
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
(David Harrington; former steering group member) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection
I do not object to the publication of this document. However: 1. Though it is only a "informative" reference, I do wonder how dependent this document is on moving 6to4 to Historic in the minds of WG members. Maybe they are completely independent. But it is a concern, especially if the IETF decides to *not* move 6to4 to Historic. 2. The document says: Other advice applies to content providers and implementers, but this document does not discuss aspects that are mainly outside the scope of network operators... I do wonder where that other information is going to be collected together for an overview of dealing with 6to4.
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection
Very nice document. Thank you. One small question... After reading this sentence: In practice, there are few if any deployments of Router 6to4 following these recommendations. I wonder if the author has any insight into how many deployments of Router 6to4 are not following the recommendations in RFC 3056?
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
Very nicely written document. I see that draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic also mentions the 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa domain, but that's not mentioned at all here. Should it be?
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection
(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection
The document is clear and well-written. Does it make sense at the end of Section 1 to mention that this is not a BCP but only Informational because of the fact that 6to4 is being made Historic in parallel? Does this update 3056/3068, or does that not matter since they're going to be Historic?