Hi Alanna, Sorry for the delayed response, we (the authors) discussed the changes and have a few more comments:
1) The short title update from " Original: Prefer RFC8781 Current: IPv6 Prefix Discovery IMHO “IPv6 Prefix” sounds confusing and a bit meaningless. Also, the proposed mechanism can be used in dual-stack networks, strictly speaking. Therefore we'd like to suggest: NEW: “NAT64 Prefix Discovery”. 2) CURRENT: 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]. PREF64 definition saying “from IPv6 clients to IPv4 servers” isn’t strictly accurate, and the double use of addresses felt awkward compared to the straightforward definition in 8781: “An IPv6 prefix used for IPv6 address synthesis [RFC6146].” We should reuse the 8781 definition, especially given the close relationship between this draft and 8781. So we are proposing: NEW: PREF64: Pref64::/n or NAT64 prefix. An IPv6 prefix used for IPv6 address synthesis [RFC6146]. 3) ORIGINAL: Fundamentally, the presence of the NAT64 and the exact value of the prefix used for the translation are network-specific attributes. Your comment was: " 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?", so the text was changed to CURRENT: "Fundamentally, the NAT64 function and the exact value of the prefix used for the translation are network-specific attributes." However I'd disagree with a statement that "network-specific attributes" seems to directly describe "NAT64 and the exact values" rather than their presence“. It’s exactly the presence (or lack of thereof) which the device needs to detect, and if there is NAT64 - then the specific prefix value. So I’d either keep the original, or propose NEW: The presence or absence of NAT64 functionality, as well as its associated prefix (if present), are network-dependent attributes. Thank you! On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 5:36 AM 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 > > -- Cheers, Jen Linkova -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
