Advisory Guidelines for 6to4 Deployment
RFC 6343

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

Comment (2011-06-23)
No email
send info
Thank you for writing this.

Some minor comments: Section 5.2 could say something about using routing protocols between the gateway and the two routers.

Section 7.2 title has a typo.

(Ron Bonica) Yes

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

Comment (2011-06-22 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Very nice document.  Thank you.

One small question...

After reading this sentence:

   In
   practice, there are few if any deployments of Router 6to4 following
   these recommendations.

I wonder if the author has any insight into how many deployments of
Router 6to4 are not following the recommendations in RFC 3056?

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

Comment (2011-06-16 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
The document is clear and well-written.

Does it make sense at the end of Section 1 to mention that this is not a BCP but only Informational because of the fact that 6to4 is being made Historic in parallel?

Does this update 3056/3068, or does that not matter since they're going to be Historic?

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2011-06-21 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Very nicely written document.

I see that draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic also mentions
the 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa domain, but that's not mentioned at all
here. Should it be?

(David Harrington) No Objection

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

Comment (2011-06-21 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
I do not object to the publication of this document. However:

1. Though it is only a "informative" reference, I do wonder how dependent this document is on moving 6to4 to Historic in the minds of WG members. Maybe they are completely independent. But it is a concern, especially if the IETF decides to *not* move 6to4 to Historic.

2. The document says:

   Other advice applies to content providers and implementers, but this
   document does not discuss aspects that are mainly outside the scope
   of network operators...

I do wonder where that other information is going to be collected together for an overview of dealing with 6to4.

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection