Summary: Has enough positions to pass.
The draft has been rewritten as an update to RFC6890 to clarify past IESG and IANA concerns. My previous DISCUSS position: After looking at the comments from the IESG and IANA, it seems better to rewrite this document as an update to RFC6890 for improved clarity. The authors will work on a new version written as an update to RFC6890. I will put it up on future telechat when it is ready.
I share the concern raided by Suresh and Benoit about the difficulty in reviewing this draft without a summary of changes. There were similar concerns raised by the GenART and RTGDIR reviewers.
Thank you for the improvements from version 5 to version 6.
I am happier with the latest version and its relationship to RFC 6890.
S 2.2. Why was the Reserved-by-Protocol value for 255.255.255.255 changed? A sentence here about why would help. S 3. Daniel's name is spelled "Migault"
Pointing 2001::/32 to the entire Teredo document casts a fairly large net. I think a reference to RFC4380 section 5 would get interested parties to the information they want more rapidly.