Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines-12.txt

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 00:36:48 -0500

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines-12.txt

For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Summary: This draft is well written and is ready for publication as an 
Informational RFC but has some minor issues that need to be fixed.

Minor
=====

* Section 2

NAT-PT was defined in RFC2766 and not in RFC4966 (which deprecated it).

Suggest replacing

NAT-PT:  refers to a specific, old design of a Network Address
Translator - Protocol Translator defined in [RFC4966].

with

NAT-PT:  refers to a specific, old design of a Network Address
Translator - Protocol Translator defined in [RFC2766] and
deprecated due to the reasons stated in [RFC4966].

* Section 3.1

"  For instance, a service provider network might stop providing IPv4
    service within its own network, while still allowing its IPv6
    customers to access the rest of the IPv4 Internet through overlay or
    proxy services."

IPv6-IPv4 translation could also be used as a sunsetting mechanism. 
Could you include this as an option. e.g.

"  For instance, a service provider network might stop providing IPv4
    service within its own network, while still allowing its IPv6
    customers to access the rest of the IPv4 Internet through overlay,
    proxy, or translation services."

Thanks
Suresh

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 23:59:26 +0200

Thank you Suresh for these comments. I have addressed all of them in -14.

Jari