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
-->
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].
-->
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.
-->
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].
-->
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.
-->
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.
-->
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.
-->
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>.
-->
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.
-->
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.
-->
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].
-->
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.
-->
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]
