Shepherd writeup

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the
Document Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February

What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

    Standards Track.

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

   Technical Summary

   This document describes the Stateless IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm
   (SIIT), which translates between IPv4 and IPv6 packet headers
   (including ICMP headers).  This document obsoletes RFC 6145.

   Document Quality

   This document changes RFC 6145 as described and mandated by
   RFC 6179, draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-eam, and
   draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation, and in accordance
   with draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis]


   Fred Baker is the document shepherd. The AD is Joel Jaeggli.

Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.

   While the update was primarily done by my co-authors, I am one
   of the authors of RFC 6145. The changes required by
   draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-eam and
   draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation were discussed and
   approved in v6ops and 6man respectively, and are well understood.

   I have read it and approve of its contents.

Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?


Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA,
DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization?

   Not really.

Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or
the IESG should be aware of?


Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP
79 have already been filed.


   That said, it has come to our attention that a predecessor
   document to RFC 6145, RFC 2765, had IPR filed in 2007.  To our knowledge, Hitachi
   has not asserted infringement on any of the several RFC 6145
   implementations, and we don't see why they would on this.

Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?


How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?

   The working group has reviewed it and considers it necessary.

Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme


Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.

   in one place, the document gives instructions on the handling
   of martian addresses, and gives two examples. This was in RFC 6145
   and RFC 2765.

Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?


Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?


Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?


Will publication of this document change the status of any existing

   yes; it obsoletes and replaces RFC 6145.

Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body
of the document.

   It is correct