Hi Alanna, Thank you very much for making those changes. I approve the updated text.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 4:55 AM Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Jen, > > Thank you for sending those additional changes. We have updated the files > accordingly. > > FYI - Per your request to add a citation to RFC 6146, we have added a > reference entry for it in the Informative References section. > > 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) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-lastdiff.html (last version to > this one) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff between > last version and this) > > We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page > 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 26, 2025, at 5:22 PM, Jen Linkova <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 > -- Cheers, Jen Linkova -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
