Please advance in the process and publish the draft from the
Softwires WG. Here is the proto writeup for the draft:
draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-04.txt
>(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
>Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why
>is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
>title page header?
Intended status: Informational
This document discusses the motivation for Carrier-side Stateless
IPv4 over IPv6, rather than defines a protocol.
>
>(2) 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
IPv4 service continuity is a desired function even for IPv6 access
networks. Current standardization effort that addresses IPv4 service
continuity focuses on stateful mechanisms. This document elaborates
on the motivations for the need to undertake a companion effort to
specify stateless IPv4 over IPv6 approaches.
>Working Group Summary
>
> Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
> example, was there controversy about particular points or
> were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
> rough?
This document was discussed in depth and well-reviewed.
WG consensus is strong to publish this document.
>
>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?
This is motivation document rather than a protocol definition.
The softwire interim meeting in Beijing intensively discussed the
stateless motivations and potential solutions. The stateless motivation
got strong concencus during the following ietf face-to-face meetings and
on the mailing list, from both major operators and vendors. Most of the
operators in Softwire are quite active in stateless motivations and they
joined the detailed work of composing the motivations into the document.
The document was reviewed thoroughly in the working group. There's no any
existing issue in the document and the document is ready for advancement.
>
>Personnel
>
> Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
> Director?
Softwire co-chair, Yong Cui, is the Document Shepherd.
Ralph Droms is the Responsible AD.
>
>(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
>the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
>for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
>the IESG.
The document is well writen and ready for publication.
>
>(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
>breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No.
>
>
>(5) 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? If so, describe the review that
>took place.
No.
>
>(6) 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? 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.
N/A.
>
>(7) 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. If not, explain why.
N/A.
This document does not define any architecture/protocol nor any solution
to a technical problem.
>
>(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
>If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
>disclosures.
No IPR issue.
>
>(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? 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?
This document was revised based on the discussion in wg meetings
and mailinglist.
The WG consensus is strong and most of the active participants
strongly agree on the advancement of this document.
>
>(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
>discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
>email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
>separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
No.
>
>(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
>document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
>Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
>thorough.
No nits issues.
>
>
>(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
>criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
N/A.
>
>(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
>either normative or informative?
As a motivation document, there are only informative references
in the document.
>
>(14) 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 plan for their completion?
No.
>
>(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
>If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
>the Last Call procedure.
>
No.
>
>(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
>existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
>in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
>listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
>part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
>other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
>explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
No.
>
>(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
>section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
>document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
>are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
>Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
>identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
>detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
>allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
>reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
N/A.
>
>
>(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
>allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
>useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
N/A.
>
>(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
>Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
>language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
N/A.