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)?
Informational. It is essentially a white paper describing how
existing technologies including draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-eam may
be deployed in an operational setting.
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
This document describes an extension of the Stateless IP/ICMP
Translation for IPv6 Internet Data Centre Environments architecture
(SIIT-DC), which allows applications, protocols, or nodes that
are incompatible with IPv6, and/or Network Address Translation
to operate correctly in an SIIT-DC environment. This is
accomplished by introducing a new component called an SIIT-DC
Edge Relay, which reverses the translations made by an SIIT-DC
Border Relay. The application and/or node is thus provided with
seemingly native IPv4 connectivity that provides end-to-end
The reader is expected to be familiar with the SIIT-DC architecture
described in I-D.ietf-v6ops-siit-dc.
Working Group Summary
The only real question was whether it belonged in the WG. The
WG, in discussion, determined that it constituted an operational
procedure comparable to 464xlat, and was therefore within charter.
The document describes something that is in fact implemented in
at least four products from three vendors, and is in use in the
author's networks and in other networks, as discussed at IETF
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.
I have read the document and commented on it. As one of the
authors of RFC 6145, which it builds on, I understand the
technology pretty well.
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?
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.
Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?
The working group clearly supports it.
Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
There are a couple of places where a defined address is used in
accordance with the definition, and the RFC in question is
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
Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body
qof the document.
It is correct