1. The draft is informational. This is the proper type because the draft describes and analyses pros and cons of different deployment scenarios. The status is indicated in the draft page header.
2. Technical summary:
This seems fine to grab from the document.
Working group summary:
The draft started its life as draft-palet-v6ops-464xlat-deployment in October 2017, then evolved into draft-palet-v6ops-nat64-deployment in March 2018 as a
NAT64 deployment guideline document intended to be BCP. It was adopted as a working group document as draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-deployment in July 2018 with changed intended status to Informational.
The dicussions in the WG has been supportive of the draft, the author has taken feedback/suggestions into account and over time evolved/progressed the document during productive discussions. There has been no general opposition to the draft itself apart from people opposing on principle on DNS64 "breaking"
DNSSEC. That is not the fault of this draft and this draft suggests no technological changes.
The document describes technology implemented by numerous networks and devices, primarily in mobile networks. The author proposes this technology to be used in more deployment scenarios and that's the motivation for this draft, to analyse the deployment considerations for other types of network types. The document has received substantial technical and stylistic feedback and I believe the document is in good technical shape. The RFC editor might have some linguistic/grammar/stylistic work to do on this draft, but I believe this is normal when the author is non-native english speaker/writer.
Shepherd: Mikael Abrahamsson
3. I (Mikael Abrahamsson) has actively participated in review of this document as a WG member before being asked to shepherd the document. I have experience in using the technology described in the document and I believe the document is in good technical shape as is ready to be progressed.
4. The document has received feedback from at least 10 WG members over time and in the last call approximately 5 people publically said they had reviewed the document and proposed changes/enhancements (typically minor things and proposal for adding text) and expressed support for the document being useful and should be progressed. There was no opposition during WGLC.
5. I do not think the document needs broader review. The document is informational and describes an overview of already existing technology and considerations for deploying these technologies in different combinations. It doesn't propose anything new.
6. I do not have any technical concerns regarding this document.
7. The author has publically stated he is not aware of any IPR regarding the draft contents.
8. There are no IPR disclosures that I could find.
9. There were no public opposition to this document. Having participated in the WG for over 10 years I do not believe there is any significant opposition to this document.
10. There has been no publicly expressed discontent with the document.
11. The document uses SHOULD/MUST, I do not know if this is appropriate for an informational document.
12. I do not believe the contents need any such review.
13. The document has normative/informative sections. There are other links in the document that are not part of these sections, for instance that links to example software implementations.
14. The normative references are all already published RFCs.
15. No downward references.
16. From the IANA considerations section of the document:
" This document does not have any new specific IANA considerations.
Note: This section is assuming that https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2D&d=DwIBAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=Fch9FQ82sir-BoLx84hKuKwl-AWF2EfpHcAwrDThKP8&m=onDnhh0AK3SDvvBtIoUPMX_EyiwRkhaLMQYS5SjEWhA&s=9sp-Hz5xzkHQ4ZxVoBrBpPx3GvWHOwC7pjLK_nTgmzc&e=
editor.org/errata/eid5152 is resolved, otherwise, this section may
include the required text to resolve the issue.
I do not know how to resolve this.
17. There are no IANA registries work in the document.
19. The document contains no XML, BNF or MIB definitions.