I will review and await response see from Jen and Tommy. Thanks! nb On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 14:36 Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Nick, > > Thank you for your reply. We have updated as requested. > > FYI - Per your response to query 11, we have made additional updates > throughout the document to clarify the usage of RFC citation tags. See > these updates in the files below. > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.pdf > > The relevant diff files have been posted here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 > changes) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 > changes side by side) > > Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further > updates you may have. Note that we do not make changes once a document is > published as an RFC. > > We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page > below prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9872 > > Thank you, > Alanna Paloma > RFC Production Center > > > On Sep 24, 2025, at 2:22 PM, Nick Buraglio <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 5:53 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Authors, > > > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as > necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file. > > > > 1) <!--[rfced] FYI - To closer reflect the full title of the document, we > > have updated the short title as follows. Note that this appears in the > > running header of the PDF output. > > > > Original: > > Prefer RFC8781 > > > > Current: > > IPv6 Prefix Discovery > > --> > > Agreed. Suggest perhaps > > > > NEW: IPv6 Prefix Discovery in IPv6-only and IPv6-mostly networks > > > > 2) <!--[rfced] To avoid the repetition of "based" twice in the same > sentence and > > to clarify "[RFC7051] analysis", may we update this sentence as follows? > > > > Original: > > [RFC7050] introduces the > > first DNS64-based mechanism for PREF64 discovery based on [RFC7051] > > analysis. > > > > Perhaps: > > [RFC7050] introduces the > > first DNS64-based mechanism for PREF64 discovery per the analysis > described > > in [RFC7051]. > > --> > > > > This works for me. > > NEW: [RFC7050] introduces the first DNS64-based mechanism for PREF64 > discovery per the analysis described in [RFC7051]. > > > > 3) <!--[rfced] May we clarify the citations in the text below as follows? > > > > Original: > > Due to fundamental shortcomings of the [RFC7050] mechanism > > (Section 4), [RFC8781] is the preferred solution for new deployments. > > > > Perhaps: > > Due to fundamental shortcomings of the mechanism defined in [RFC7050] > > (see Section 4 for more details), [RFC8781] describes the preferred > > solution for new deployments. > > Agreed. > > NEW: Due to fundamental shortcomings of the mechanism defined in > [RFC7050] (see Section 4 for more details), [RFC8781] describes the > preferred solution for new deployments. > > --> > > > > > > 4) <!--[rfced] We note that some of the acronyms listed in the > Terminology > > section are formatted in different ways (e.g., expanded form in > parentheses, > > acronym in parentheses, and expanded form in description). To make these > > consistent, may we update to have the expanded form appear in the > > description of the acronyms listed? > > > > Original: > > PREF64 (or Pref64::/n, or NAT64 prefix): An IPv6 prefix used for IPv6 > > address synthesis and for network addresses and protocols translation > > from IPv6 clients to IPv4 servers using the algorithm defined in > > [RFC6052]. > > > > Router Advertisement (RA): A packet used by Neighbor Discovery > > [RFC4861] and SLAAC to advertise the presence of the routers, > > together with other IPv6 configuration information. > > > > SLAAC: StateLess Address AutoConfiguration, [RFC4862] > > > > Perhaps: > > PREF64: Pref64::/n or NAT64 prefix. An IPv6 prefix used for IPv6 > > address synthesis and for network addresses and protocols translation > > from IPv6 clients to IPv4 servers using the algorithm defined in > > [RFC6052]. > > > > RA: Router Advertisement. A packet used by Neighbor Discovery > > [RFC4861] and SLAAC to advertise the presence of the routers, > > together with other IPv6 configuration information. > > > > SLAAC: Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862]. > > --> > > > > Agreed. > > > > NEW: > > > > PREF64: Pref64::/n or NAT64 prefix. An IPv6 prefix used for IPv6 > > address synthesis and for network addresses and protocols translation > > from IPv6 clients to IPv4 servers using the algorithm defined in > > [RFC6052]. > > > > RA: Router Advertisement. A packet used by Neighbor Discovery > > [RFC4861] and SLAAC to advertise the presence of the routers, > > together with other IPv6 configuration information. > > > > SLAAC: Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862]. > > > > > > 5) <!--[rfced] As "are network-specific attributes" seems to directly > describe > > "NAT64 and the exact values" rather than their presence, may we remove > "the > > presence of" from this sentence? > > > > Original: > > Fundamentally, the presence of the NAT64 and the exact value of the > > prefix used for the translation are network-specific attributes. > > > > Perhaps: > > Fundamentally, the NAT64 and the exact value of the > > prefix used for the translation are network-specific attributes. > > --> > > > > How about this: > > > > NEW: > > Fundamentally, the NAT64 function and the exact value of the > > prefix used for the translation are network-specific attributes. > > > > > > > > 6) <!--[rfced] FYI, we have formatted the following quoted text to appear > > in <blockquote>. Please review and let us know of any objections. > > > > Original: > > Section 3 of [RFC7050] states: "The node SHALL cache the replies it > > receives during the Pref64::/n discovery procedure, and it SHOULD > > repeat the discovery process ten seconds before the TTL of the Well- > > Known Name's synthetic AAAA resource record expires." As a result, > > once a PREF64 is discovered, it will be used until the TTL expired, > > or until the node disconnects from the network. > > > > Current: > > Section 3 of [RFC7050] states: > > > > | The node SHALL cache the replies it receives during the Pref64::/n > > | discovery procedure, and it SHOULD repeat the discovery process > > | ten seconds before the TTL of the Well-Known Name's synthetic AAAA > > | resource record expires. > > > > As a result, once a PREF64 is discovered, it will be used until the > > TTL expires or until the node disconnects from the network. > > --> > > > > Agreed. > > > > 7) <!--[rfced] As the sentence below reads awkwardly, may we rephrase it > as follows? Additionally, may we clarify that the mechanisms are being > used, not the RFCs? > > > > Original: > > Requiring nodes to implement two defense mechanisms when only one is > > necessary when [RFC8781] is used in place of [RFC7050] creates > > unnecessary risk. > > > > Perhaps: > > When the mechanism defined in [RFC8781] is used in place of the one > defined in > > [RFC7050], nodes only need to implement one defense mechanism; > requiring nodes > > to implement two defense mechanisms creates an unnecessary risk. > > --> > > > > This does read better. > > > > NEW: > > When the mechanism defined in [RFC8781] is used in place of the one > defined in > > [RFC7050], nodes only need to implement one defense mechanism; requiring > nodes > > to implement two defense mechanisms creates an unnecessary risk. > > > > 8) <!-- [rfced] The following reference is not cited in the text. > Please let > > us know where it should be cited; otherwise, it will be deleted from the > > references section. > > > > [RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful > > NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 > > Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146, > > April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6146>. > > --> > > > > This looks like it was added to our repo on 27-Aug-2024 by Jen. I only > see the informative reference and not any call to it. Interestingly, I am > unsure how that build worked. I believe we are ok to take it out unless Jen > has a detail I am missing. > > > > 9) <!--[rfced] FYI - We have alphabetized the names listed in the > Acknowledgments > > section. We believe that was the intent as only two were out of order. > Let us > > know if you prefer the original order. > > --> > > Agreed. > > > > > > 10) <!--[rfced] Throughout the text, "RA Option" and "RA option" are used > > inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how > they may > > be made consistent. > > --> > > > > RFC 8781 uses "RA Option" so I think we are best to standardize on > that. > > > > 11) <!--[rfced] There are a number of instances throughout the document > where an RFC > > citation is used as an adjective. To clarify that the content of an RFC > is being > > described, not the RFC document itself, may we rephrase these instances? > An > > example from Section 1 can be seen here: > > > > Original: > > However, subsequent methods have been developed to address > > [RFC7050] limitations. > > > > Perhaps: > > However, subsequent methods have been developed to address > > the limitations of the mechanism described in [RFC7050]. > > --> > > > > Yes. this reads more fluidly to me. > > > > NEW: > > However, subsequent methods have been developed to address > > the limitations of the mechanism described in [RFC7050]. > > > > 12) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the > online > > Style Guide < > https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> > > and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature > typically > > result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. > > > > Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this > should > > still be reviewed as a best practice. > > --> > > > > Will do. > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > Alanna Paloma > > RFC Production Center > > > > > > On Sep 22, 2025, at 3:52 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > > > Updated 2025/09/22 > > > > RFC Author(s): > > -------------- > > > > Instructions for Completing AUTH48 > > > > Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and > > approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. > > If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies > > available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). > > > > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties > > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing > > your approval. > > > > Planning your review > > --------------------- > > > > Please review the following aspects of your document: > > > > * RFC Editor questions > > > > Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor > > that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as > > follows: > > > > <!-- [rfced] ... --> > > > > These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. > > > > * Changes submitted by coauthors > > > > Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your > > coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you > > agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. > > > > * Content > > > > Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot > > change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: > > - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) > > - contact information > > - references > > > > * Copyright notices and legends > > > > Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in > > RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions > > (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). > > > > * Semantic markup > > > > Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of > > content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> > > and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at > > <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. > > > > * Formatted output > > > > Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the > > formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is > > reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting > > limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. > > > > > > Submitting changes > > ------------------ > > > > To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all > > the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties > > include: > > > > * your coauthors > > > > * [email protected] (the RPC team) > > > > * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., > > IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the > > responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). > > > > * [email protected], which is a new archival mailing > list > > to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion > > list: > > > > * More info: > > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc > > > > * The archive itself: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ > > > > * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out > > of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive > matter). > > If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you > > have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, > > [email protected] will be re-added to the CC list > and > > its addition will be noted at the top of the message. > > > > You may submit your changes in one of two ways: > > > > An update to the provided XML file > > — OR — > > An explicit list of changes in this format > > > > Section # (or indicate Global) > > > > OLD: > > old text > > > > NEW: > > new text > > > > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit > > list of changes, as either form is sufficient. > > > > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem > > beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of > text, > > and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found > in > > the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream > manager. > > > > > > Approving for publication > > -------------------------- > > > > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating > > that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, > > as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. > > > > > > Files > > ----- > > > > The files are available here: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.xml > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.pdf > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.txt > > > > Diff file of the text: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-diff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-rfcdiff.html (side by > side) > > > > Diff of the XML: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-xmldiff1.html > > > > > > Tracking progress > > ----------------- > > > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9872 > > > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > > > RFC Editor > > > > -------------------------------------- > > RFC9872 (draft-ietf-v6ops-prefer8781-07) > > > > Title : Recommendations for Discovering IPv6 Prefix Used for > IPv6 Address Synthesis > > Author(s) : N. Buraglio, T. Jensen, J. Linkova > > WG Chair(s) : XiPeng Xiao, Nick Buraglio > > > > Area Director(s) : Mohamed Boucadair, Mahesh Jethanandani > > >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
