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?
This is listed as a Standards Track document. The reason is that
it addresses an issue in RFC 6145, which is Proposed Standard,
and in 6145bis, which will be proposed standard.
Document Announcement Write-Up
Technical Summary
This document extends the Stateless IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm
(SIIT) with an Explicit Address Mapping (EAM) algorithm, and
formally updates RFC 6145. The EAM algorithm facilitates stateless
IP/ICMP translation between arbitrary (non-IPv4-translatable)
IPv6 endpoints and IPv4.
Working Group Summary
The only real issue raised in the working group was whether the
document should go to a different one, based on the working group
charter. The working group elected to address it, with the AD's
concurrence, based on siit-dc and siit-dc-2xlat being an operational
procedure and this being closely related, and the facts that
behave is closed and softwire is closing.
Document Quality
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
93.
Personnel
Fred Baker is the document shepherd, and Joel Jaeggli is the AD.
Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.
I have read the document and run it through idnits. Note that
idnits flags several uses of IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes, but the
prefixes are being used as specified in RFC 6052 and other RFCs
- and identifies the reference.
Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No.
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.
I don't think that is necessary.
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?
I am confortable with the document.
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.
Yes.
Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
No
How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?
Solid.
Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent?
No
Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to
be thorough.
As previously commented on -
Note that idnits flags several uses of IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes,
but the prefixes are being used as specified in RFC 6052 and
other RFCs - and identifies the reference.
Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes
Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
No
Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
No
Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs?
It updates 6145, and will be a companion to 6145bis.
Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section...
it is correct