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]
