I've cleared my Discuss and Comments. Thanks for addressing my issues.
05 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Chris Lonvick.
functions that are needed to mediate any given set of subscribers flows"
described, in this document, as an adjunct to IPv6 deployment.
1. s/DHCPv6/DHCPv4/ in the last sentence of section 4.2?
how to provide access to IPv6 content to IPv4-only hosts.
addresses through whatever secondary markets might develop.
1. I was surprised to not find any mention of an analysis of hardware capabilities in the Phase 0 discussion in Section 5. It seems to me like it would be useful to have a good understanding of what capabilities key devices have in my network. It would have a direct impact on an IPv6 roll-out plan if a software or hardware upgrade would be needed.
2. The order of transition technologies in section 4 seemed haphazard. It may be cleaner to group the technologies (e.g., early IPv6 deployment, IPv4 life support mechanisms, etc.).
3. Was any consideration given to including a discussion on the potential impact of IPv6 on the overall network architecture? For example, what if I wanted to use SLAAC + stateless DHCPv6 to configure my hosts? I may want to consider topology changes from my current IPv4 architecture to increase reachability to DHCPv6 servers.
05 Pete McCann Request for Telechat review by GENART No Response. Reviewer: Pete McCann.
> This document is recommended as "informational"; it is essentially a white paper describing a phased approach to operational deployment of IPv6.
> The working group process was pretty straightforward. To the shepherd's knowledge, while every operator has not taken (or considered) taking every step laid out, there is no dissent regarding the approach. What the framework lays out is what steps make sense at the various decision points and how they should be thought through.
> The framework is well written and has stood up under review.
> The Document Shepherd is Fred Baker. The Responsible AD is Ron Bonica.
> The shepherd read the initial document, followed the working group discussion and spoke with the authors privately, and read the ultimate outcome. The document is clear and understandable.
> No. The acknowledgements section notes a number of people who have commented or contributed text.
> This is not, in my view, required. The document contains no formal language, and imposes no protocol specifics.
> The shepherd is comfortable with the document, and working group discussion has not surfaced remaining issues.
> (7) 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.
> Not to my knowledge.
> As noted in the acknowledgements, working group discussion was robust and broad. I would describe this as having broad consensus.
> I found no nits.
> The references are list as normative and informative.
> There are no such references.
> An informational document cannot have downward references.
> This document uses other RFCs, but does not update them.
> The document doesn't depend on IANA registries or create new ones.