Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9313 <draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-04> for your review

[[e-mail]]

Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.


1) <!-- [rfced] Please note that the title of the document has been updated as
follows. Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC
Style Guide"). Please review.

Original:
  Pros and Cons of IPv6 Transition Technologies for IPv4aaS

Current:
  Pros and Cons of IPv6 Transition Technologies for IPv4-as-a-Service (IPv4aaS)
-->


2) <!-- [rfced] Is "In this case" needed at the beginning of both sentences
below? 

Original: 
  In this case, the IPv6-only client sends out IPv6 packets, and the
  CLAT functions as an IPv6 router and the PLAT performs a stateful NAT64 for
  these packets.  In this case, there is a single translation.

Perhaps:
  In this case, the IPv6-only client sends out IPv6 packets, the CLAT
  functions as an IPv6 router router, and the PLAT performs a stateful NAT64 for
  these packets. There is a single translation. 
-->


3) <!-- [rfced] May we update "user's equipment (UE or smartphone)" as follows?
Or is another meaning intended?

Original:
   Note: in mobile networks, CLAT is commonly implemented in the user's
   equipment (UE or smartphone), please refer to Figure 2 of [RFC6877].
   
Perhaps:
   Note: In mobile networks, CLAT is commonly implemented in the user
   equipment (UE) or smartphone; please refer to Figure 2 of [RFC6877].   
-->


4) <!-- [rfced] Please confirm that [RFC2473] and [RFC2663] are correct here. We
believe these are okay, but we ask because we do not see "AFTR" or "4in6" in 
[RFC2473] (though we do see "encapsulation" and "decapsulation"), and we do not 
see "NAPT44" in [RFC2663] (though we do see "NAPT").

Original:
   The AFTR performs encapsulation/decapsulation of the 4in6
   [RFC2473] traffic and translates the IPv4 source address in the inner
   IPv4 packet to public IPv4 source address using a stateful NAPT44
   [RFC2663] function.
-->


5) <!-- [rfced] Please also confirm that [RFC2663] is correct here. We do not see
"stateful" or "NAPT44" in [RFC2663], though we do see "NAPT".

Original:
   The CE (Customer-Edge) router typically performs stateful NAPT44
   [RFC2663] to translate the private IPv4 source addresses and source
   ports into an address and port range defined by applying the MAP rule
   to the delegated IPv6 prefix. 
-->


6) <!-- [rfced] We updated the series of verbs as follows for parallel
structure (i.e., "decapsulate...validate...calculate" rather than
"decapsulate...validating...how to calculate"). Please review and confirm
that the updated text retains the intended meaning.

Original: 
  These rules determine how the MAP BR is to decapsulate
  traffic that it receives from the client, validating the source IPv4 address
  and transport layer ports assigned, as well as how to calculate the
  destination IPv6 address for ingress IPv4 traffic.

Current: 
  These rules determine how the MAP BR is to decapsulate traffic
  that it receives from the client, validate the source IPv4 address and
  transport-layer ports assigned, and calculate the destination IPv6 address
  for ingress IPv4 traffic.
-->


7) <!-- [rfced] Will "to be statelessly NAT64 translated" be clear to readers?
Would recasting the sentence be helpful?

Original:
   The MAP BR is
   provisioned with the same BMR as the client, enabling the received
   IPv6 traffic to be statelessly NAT64 translated back to the public
   IPv4 source address used by the client.
   
Perhaps:
   The MAP BR is
   provisioned with the same BMR as the client, enabling the received
   IPv6 traffic to be translated (using stateless NAT64) back to the public
   IPv4 source address used by the client.
-->


8) <!-- [rfced] We see the following forms used in the document. Is one form
preferred?

4-in-6 vs. 4in6 

In addition, Table 1 has "4-6-4 encap.". Should this read "4-in-6
encapsulation" (per bulleted list that precedes table) or "4in6
encapsulation"?
-->


9) <!-- [rfced] Is [RFC2473] correct here? We do not see "IP-in-IP" in [RFC2473],
though we do see "tunneling".

Original:
   In the scope of this document, all of the encapsulation based
   mechanisms use IP-in-IP tunnelling [RFC2473]. 
-->


10) <!--[rfced] The text that follows the colon below is very similar to text in
Section 8.3.1 of RFC 7597. Is this meant to be a direct quote?

Original: 
  The advice given in [RFC7597] Section 8.3.1 is applicable to all of
  these mechanisms: It is strongly recommended that the MTU in the IPv6-only
  domain be well managed (it should have sufficiently large MTU to support
  tunneling and/or translation) and that the IPv6 MTU on the CE WAN-side
  interface be set so that no fragmentation occurs within the boundary of the
  IPv6-only domain.  -->


11) <!-- [rfced] How may we recast this sentence to improve clarity and eliminate
the sentence fragment (i.e., text beginning with "First at...")?

Original:
  For the high-level solution of IPv6 service provider network
  traversal, MAP-T uses double stateless translation.  First at the CE from IPv4
  to IPv6 (NAT46), and then from IPv6 to IPv4 (NAT64), at the service provider
  network.

Perhaps:
  For the high-level solution of IPv6 service provider network
  traversal, MAP-T uses double stateless translation. The first translation is
  from IPv4 to IPv6 (NAT46) at the CE, and the second translation is from IPv6
  to IPv4 (NAT64) at the service provider network.
-->


12) <!-- [rfced] FYI: We updated these bullets as follows to avoid awkward
hyphenation with the expansion of "CGN".

Original:
   *  CGN-based approaches (DS-Lite, 464XLAT)

   *  A+P-based approaches (lw4o6, MAP-E, MAP-T)

Updated:
   *  Approaches based on Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) (DS-Lite, 464XLAT)

   *  Approaches based on A+P (lw4o6, MAP-E, MAP-T)
-->


13) <!--[rfced] How may we clarify "maintains per-session state only co-located
devices"? Is a word missing here?

Original: 
  In the A+P-based model, a device (usually a CE) performs stateful
  NAPT44 and maintains per-session state only co-located devices, e.g.  in the
  customer's home network.

Perhaps: 
  In the A+P-based model, a device (usually a CE) performs stateful NAPT44
  and maintains per-session state only on co-located devices, e.g., in the
  customer's home network.
-->


14) <!-- [rfced] Will readers know what "this" refers to here? Please review this
sentence in context and let us know if any updates are needed.

Original:
   In the
   case of 464XLAT, this can be achieved as well through EAMT (Explicit Address
   Mapping Table) [RFC7757].
-->


15) <!-- [rfced] What does 'under "port numbers"' mean here? Would "By" or
something else be a better word choice than "under"?

Original:
   Note: under "port numbers", we mean TCP/UDP port numbers or ICMP
   identifiers.
-->


16) <!--[rfced] Will it be clear to readers what "it" refers to in the phrase
"if it is enabled on that network or part of it"? 

Original: 
   In most networks, it is possible to, using existing data about flows
   to CDNs/caches or other well-known IPv6-enabled destinations,
   calculate the percentage of traffic that would turn into IPv6 if it
   is enabled on that network or part of it.

Perhaps:
   In most networks, it is possible to use existing data about flows to
   Content Delivery Networks (CDNs), caches, or other well-known
   IPv6-enabled destinations to calculate the percentage of traffic that
   would turn into IPv6 if IPv6 is enabled on that network or on part of it.
-->


17) <!-- [rfced] Please review the text starting with "in order to allow 
customers..." and let us know if updates for clarity would be helpful.

Original:
   From the 65,535 ports available per IPv4 address, we could even
   consider reserving 1,024 ports, in order to allow customers that need
   EAMT entries for incoming connections to System Ports (0-1023, also
   called well-known ports) [RFC7605], which means 64,511 ports actually
   available per each IPv4 address.

Perhaps:
   From the 65,535 ports available per IPv4 address, we could even
   consider reserving 1,024 ports for customers that need
   EAMT entries for incoming connections to System ports (0-1023, also
   called "well-known ports") [RFC7605]. This means that 64,511 ports are
   actually available for each IPv4 address.
-->


18) <!-- [rfced] Should "IPv4/port" and "IPv6/port" in these sentences read "IPv4
port" and "IPv6 port" (space rather than backslash)? We see an instance of "IPv4 port"
elsewhere in the document.

Original:
   It is also possible to configure specific ports mapping in 464XLAT/
   NAT64 using EAMT [RFC7757], which means that only those ports are
   "lost" from the pool of addresses, so there is a higher maximization
   of the total usage of IPv4/port resources.
   ...
   As the deployment of IPv6 progresses, the use of NAT64, and therefore
   of public IPv4 addresses, decreases (more IPv6/ports, less IPv4/
   ports), so either more subscribers can be accommodated with the same
   number of IPv4 addresses, or some of those addressed can be retired
   from the NAT64.
-->


19) <!--[rfced] Should "dynamically assignment of addresses" here read "dynamic
assignment of addresses"? Also, may we move the "when" clause to the
beginning of the sentence to improve readability?

Original: 
  An alternative approximation for the other IPv4aaS technologies,
  when dynamically assignment of addresses is not possible, must ensure
  sufficient number of ports per subscriber.

Perhaps:
  When dynamic assignment of addresses is not possible, an
  alternative approximation for the other IPv4aaS technologies must ensure a
  sufficient number of ports per subscriber.
-->


20) <!-- [rfced] May we split up this long sentence as follows to improve
readability?

Original:
   In that
   case, assuming 80% of IPv6 traffic, as above, which will allow only
   30 subscribers per each IPv4 address, so the closer approximation to
   275,000 subscribers per our example with 464XLAT (with a /22), will
   be using a /19, which serves 245,760 subscribers (a /19 has 8,192
   addresses, 30 subscribers with 2,000 ports each, per address).

Perhaps:
   In that
   case, assuming 80% is IPv6 traffic (as above), only
   30 subscribers will be allowed per each IPv4 address; thus, the closer approximation to
   275,000 subscribers per our example with 464XLAT (with a /22) will
   be using a /19, which serves 245,760 subscribers (a /19 has 8,192
   addresses, 30 subscribers with 2,000 ports each, per address).
-->


21) <!-- [rfced] Is "into 2x2=4 categories" correct here? Is the intent "in a 2x2
matrix"? Please review and let us know if any updates are needed.

Original:
   The five IPv4aaS technologies can be classified into 2x2=4 categories
   on the basis of two aspects:
-->


22) <!-- [rfced] In Table 3, will it be clear to readers what "X" stands for in
the second row? That is, does the "X" indicate presence or absence of
NAPT44 per-flow state in the operator network?
-->


23) <!-- [rfced] We updated "PLAT/AFTR devices" to "PLAT and AFTR devices" because of the word "respectively". 

Original:
   464XLAT and DS-Lite use stateful NAPT at the PLAT/AFTR devices,
   respectively.

Updated:
   464XLAT and DS-Lite use stateful NAPT at the PLAT and AFTR devices,
   respectively.  

Is "PLAT/AFTR" okay as is in these sentences, or should these also read "PLAT and AFTR"?

Original:
   Technologies utilizing DNS64 can also distribute load across PLAT/
   AFTR devices, evenly or unevenly, by using different prefixes.
   ...
   Each entry in the PLAT/
   AFTR's generates a logging entry.  
-->


24) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing this sentence. Please clarify
"common CE router NAT44 implementations utilizing Netfilter,
multiplexes".

Original:
   We note that common CE router NAT44 implementations utilizing
   Netfilter, multiplexes active sessions using a 3-tuple (source
   address, destination address, and destination port).
   
Perhaps: 
   We note that common NAT44 implementations utilizing
   Netfilter at the CE router multiplex active sessions using a 3-tuple (source
   address, destination address, and destination port).  
-->


25) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify "Load balancer and firewall vendors" here. Is the
intent "Load balancers and firewall vendors" (two separate things),
"Vendors of load balancers and firewalls" (two types of vendors), or
something else?

Original:
   Load balancer and firewall vendors usually support NAT64 as well,
   while not all of them have support for the other protocols.
-->


26) <!-- [rfced] We have updated this sentence as follows to improve
readability. Please let us know any objections.

Original:
  The OpenWRT Linux based open-source OS designed for CE devices offers
  a number of different 'opkg' packages as part of the distribution:

Updated:
  OpenWRT is a Linux-based open-source OS designed for CE devices. It offers
  a number of different 'opkg' packages as part of the distribution:
-->         


27) <!-- [rfced] Please review "lw4o6 taking over in the last years". Is the
intended meaning "deployments of lw4o6 have been rapidly increasing in
the last few years" or something similar?

Original:
   Lw4o6 and DS-Lite have more deployments, with DS-Lite
   being the most common, but lw4o6 taking over in the last years.

Perhaps: 
   Lw4o6 and DS-Lite have more deployments, with DS-Lite
   being the most common, but deployments of lw4o6 have been rapidly
   increasing in the last few years.
-->


28) <!-- [rfced] Please confirm that the URL here is correct. We do not see either
sizes or technologies listed on this page.

Original:
   As hint to the relative complexity of the mechanisms, the following
   code sizes are reported from the OpenWRT implementations of each
   technology are 17kB, 35kB, 15kB, 35kB, and 48kB for 464XLAT, lw4o6,
   DS-Lite, MAP-E, MAP-T, and lw4o6, respectively
   (https://openwrt.org/packages/start).
-->


29) <!-- [rfced] May we update these sentences in Sections 4.5.2 and 4.5.2 (both
introduce bulleted lists) as follows?

Original: 
   Figures from existing deployments (end of 2018), show that the
   typical traffic volumes in an IPv6-only cellular network, when
   464XLAT technology is used together with DNS64, are:
   ...
   Figures from several existing deployments (end of 2020), mainly with
   residential customers, show that the typical traffic volumes in an
   IPv6-only network, when 464XLAT is used with DNS64, are in the
   following ranges:

Perhaps:
   Figures from existing deployments (through the end of 2018) show the
   typical traffic volumes in an IPv6-only cellular network when
   464XLAT technology is used together with DNS64:
   ...
   Figures from several existing deployments (through the end of 2020), mainly with
   residential customers, show the ranges of typical traffic volumes in an
   IPv6-only network, when 464XLAT is used with DNS64:
-->


30) <!--[rfced] FYI - We updated the text below for clarity (i.e., changed "which"
to "that", split into two sentences, and updated "figures" to
"percentage"). Please review and confirm that the updated text
accurately conveys the intended meaning.

Original: 
  When a wireline ISP has mainly residential customers, content
  providers and CDNs which are already IPv6 enabled (Google/Youtube, Netflix,
  Facebook, Akamai, etc) typically account for the 65-85% of the traffic in the
  network, so when the subscribers are IPv6 enabled, about the same figures of
  traffic will become IPv6.

Current: 
   When a wireline ISP has
   mainly residential customers, content providers and CDNs that are
   already IPv6 enabled (Google/YouTube, Netflix, Facebook, Akamai,
   etc.) typically account for 65-85% of the traffic in the network.
   Thus, when the subscribers are IPv6 enabled, about the same
   percentage of traffic will become IPv6.
-->


31) <!-- [rfced] Please review "PLAT/AFTR's generates". Is a word missing here? Or
should "PLAT/AFTR's" read "PLAT/AFTR" (no 's)?

Original:
   Each entry in the PLAT/AFTR's generates a logging entry.

Perhaps:
   Each entry in the PLAT/AFTR's table generates a logging entry.

Or:
   Each entry in the PLAT/AFTR generates a logging entry.
-->


32) <!-- [rfced] Will it be clear to readers what "they" and "them" refer to here?
Also, may we move the "because" clause to the beginning of the sentence
to improve readability?

Original:
  Using those optimizations, because the NAT46 has already translated
  the IPv4-only flow to IPv6, and the services are dual-stack, they can
  be reached without the need to translate them back to IPv4.

Perhaps:
   Because the NAT46 has already translated
   the IPv4-only flow to IPv6 and the services are dual-stack, using these
   optimizations allows the services to
   be reached without the need to translate the flow back to IPv4.
-->


33) <!-- [rfced] How may we clarify "legacy [RFC5180] compliant commercial tester
[LEN2020a]"? What is "compliant"?

Original:
   An example
   for the latter is our stateless NAT64 measurements testing Througput
   and Frame Loss Rate using a legacy [RFC5180] compliant commercial
   tester [LEN2020a]

Perhaps: 
   An example
   for the latter is our stateless NAT64 measurements testing Throughput
   and Frame Loss Rate using a legacy commercial
   tester [LEN2020a] that is compliant with [RFC5180].
-->


34) <!-- [rfced] In [RFC4814], we see "pseudorandom port" rather than "random
port". Are any updates needed here?

Original:
   Originally, it literally followed the test
   frame format of [RFC2544] including "hard-wired" source and
   destination port numbers, and then it has been complemented with the
   random port feature required by [RFC4814].  
-->


35) <!-- [rfced] Should "an own caching DNS server" here read "its own caching DNS
server"? Or is another meaning intended?

Original:
   However, an
   efficient cache poisoning attack requires that the subscriber
   operates an own caching DNS server and the attack is performed in the
   service provider network. 

Perhaps: 
   However, an
   efficient cache poisoning attack requires that the subscriber
   operates its own caching DNS server and the attack is performed in the
   service provider network. 
-->


36) <!-- [rfced] The URLs in the following reference entries are to personal
webpages. May we update to use more stable URLs, perhaps the URLs that
the DOIs point to?

Note that for [REP2014], we also updated the date from 2014 to 2015 (in
citation as well as reference entry), "37th" to "38th", and "Repas" to
"Répás" per the DOI provided. Please let us know any objections.

Original:
   [LEN2018]  Lencse, G. and Y. Kadobayashi, "Methodology for the
              identification of potential security issues of different
              IPv6 transition technologies: Threat analysis of DNS64 and
              stateful NAT64",  Computers & Security (Elsevier), vol.
              77, no. 1, pp. 397-411,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cose.2018.04.012,
              1 August 2018,
              <http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/publications/ECS-2018-
              Methodology-revised.pdf>.

   [LEN2019]  Lencse, G. and Y. Kadobayashi, "Comprehensive Survey of
              IPv6 Transition Technologies: A Subjective Classification
              for Security Analysis",  IEICE Transactions on
              Communications, vol. E102-B, no.10, pp. 2021-2035.,  DOI:
              10.1587/transcom.2018EBR0002, 1 October 2019,
              <http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/publications/
              e102-b_10_2021.pdf>.

   [REP2014]  Repas, S., Hajas, T., and G. Lencse, "Port number
              consumption of the NAT64 IPv6 transition
              technology",  Proc. 37th Internat. Conf. on
              Telecommunications and Signal Processing (TSP 2014),
              Berlin, Germany,  DOI: 10.1109/TSP.2015.7296411, July
              2014, <http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/publications/TSP-
              2014-PC.pdf>.

Perhaps:
   [LEN2018]  Lencse, G. and Y. Kadobayashi, "Methodology for the
              identification of potential security issues of different
              IPv6 transition technologies: Threat analysis of DNS64 and
              stateful NAT64", Computers & Security, Vol. 77, No. 1, pp.
              397-411, DOI 10.1016/j.cose.2018.04.012, August 2018,
              <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
              S0167404818303663?via%3Dihub>.

   [LEN2019]  Lencse, G. and Y. Kadobayashi, "Comprehensive Survey of
              IPv6 Transition Technologies: A Subjective Classification
              for Security Analysis", IEICE Transactions on
              Communications, Vol. E102-B, No. 10, pp. 2021-2035,
              DOI 10.1587/transcom.2018EBR0002, October2019,
              <https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/transcom/E102.B/10/
              E102.B_2018EBR0002/_article>.

   [REP2015]  Répás, S., Hajas, T., and G. Lencse, "Port Number
              Consumption of the NAT64 IPv6 Transition Technology", 38th
              International Conference on Telecommunications and Signal
              Processing, DOI 10.1109/TSP.2015.7296411, 2015,
              <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7296411>.	      
-->


37) <!-- [rfced] We have updated these references as follows. Would it be helpful
to update the [MEX2022] citation tag to something more descriptive,
perhaps [JOOL-MAPT]?

Original:
   [jool]     NIC.MX, "Open Source SIIT and NAT64 for Linux", 2022,
              <http://www.jool.mx>.
	      ...
   [MEX2022]  Jool Developers, "Jool: Siit and NAT64",  Documentation of
              Jool MAP-T implementation, 2022,
              <https://www.jool.mx/en/run-mapt.html>.
	      
Updated:
   [JOOL]     "Jool: SIIT & NAT64", <http://www.jool.mx>.
   ...
   [MEX2022]  "MAP-T Run", <https://www.jool.mx/en/run-mapt.html>.   
-->


38) <!-- [rfced] Please confirm that this reference entry is correct. We ask
because we do not see the title on the URL provided, though we do see a
few instances of "vpp". Also, the original text that contains the [vpp]
citation mentions "VPP/fd.io", which we do not see at the URL.  Note that
the URL provided redirects to https://gerrit.fd.io/r/admin/repos/ (a
repository of some sort). Please review and let us know if any updates
are needed.

Original:
   *  VPP/fd.io [vpp] (MAP-BR, lwAFTR, CGN, CLAT, NAT64).
   ...
   [vpp]      "VPP Implementations of IPv6-only with IPv4aaS", 2022,
              <https://gerrit.fd.io/r/#/admin/projects/>.
-->


39) <!-- [rfced] We have updated these references as follows per the guidance on
"Referencing Web-Based Public Code Repositories (e.g., GitHub)" at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#ref_repo. Please review this
website and the updated reference entries to confirm accuracy.

Note that we did not update the title of either reference entry. For [SNABB],
is the title okay as is? Or would "Snabb Switch: Fast open source packet"
(which appears under "About" at <https://github.com/Igalia/snabb>) be better?
We see that the title of the [SIITPERF] entry appears under "About".

Original:
   [SIITperf] Lencse, G., "Siitperf: an RFC 8219 compliant SIIT
              (stateless NAT64) tester", November 2019,
              <https://github.com/lencsegabor/siitperf>.
   ...	      
   [snabb]    Igalia, "Snabb implementation of lwAFTR", 2022,
              <https://github.com/Igalia/snabb>.

Updated:
   [SIITPERF] "Siitperf: an RFC 8219 compliant SIIT (stateless NAT64)
              tester", commit bdce0f, February 2021,
              <https://github.com/lencsegabor/siitperf>.

   [SNABB]    "Snabb implementation of lwAFTR", commit 1ef72ce, January
              2022, <https://github.com/Igalia/snabb>.
-->


40) <!-- [rfced] Is the citation [aftr] correct here? We ask because we do not see
AFTR mentioned on the link provided in the corresponding reference entry
for [aftr]. Please review.

Original:
   *  AFTR [aftr] (DSLite AFTR).

Also, we do not see the title of the reference entry below listed at the
provided URL. The URL goes to the ISC downloads page that provides downloads
for BIND 9, ISC DHCP, Kea, and Stork. Is the intent to cite one of these? Is
the current title of this reference okay as is, or is an update needed?

Original:
   [aftr]     ISC, "ISC implementation of AFTR", 2022,
              <https://www.isc.org/downloads/>.
-->


41) <!-- [rfced] Terminology

a) We see both "tester" and "Tester" in the document. Should the capialization
be consistent?


b) FYI - we see both "well-known ports" and "Well-Known-Ports" in the document.
We updated to "well-known ports" as that form is more common in the RFC
Series.


c) We expanded the following acronyms as shown below. Please let us know
any objections.

Content Delivery Network (CDN) - per expansion in RFC 8683

Inter-Packet Delay Variation (IPDV)


d) How should the acronym "MAP" be expanded when not in the context of "MAP-E" or "MAP-T"?


e) Please review the following terms that use the backslash. Are these okay as
is, or would updating to use commas with "and" (or "or") be better?

lwAFTR/BR
PLAT/AFTR/BR 
PLAT/AFTR/lwAFTR/BR
-->


42) <!-- [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.

For example, please consider whether the following should be updated: 

native
-->


43) <!-- [rfced] XML formatting

a) Please review whether any of the notes in this document
should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container for 
content that is semantically less important or tangential to the 
content that surrounds it" (https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc.html#name-aside-2).


b) Would it be helpful to use the <eref> element for sohu.com and
twitter.com here to create links in the html and pdf output formats? Note that
we would need to update to <https://www.sohu.com/> and <https://twitter.com/>,
respectively.

Original:
   For example, under
   certain conditions, 120-160 ports were used (URL: sohu.com, browser:
   Firefox under Ubuntu Linux), and in some other cases it was only 3-12
   ports (URL: twitter.com, browser: Iceweasel under Debian Linux).


c) Some author comments are present in the XML. Please confirm that
no updates related to these comments are outstanding. Note that the
comments will be deleted prior to publication.
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor/st/mc/rv



On Sep 13, 2022, at 1:46 PM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2022/09/13

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

  *  [e-mail] (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).

  *  [e-mail], 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, 
       [e-mail] 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/rfc9313.xml
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313.txt

Diff file of the text:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313-diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Alt-diff of the text (allows you to more easily view changes 
where text has been deleted or moved): 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313-alt-diff.html

Diff of the XML: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313-xmldiff1.html

The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own 
diff files of the XML.  

Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313.original.v2v3.xml 

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9313.form.xml


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9313

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9313 (draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-04)

Title            : Pros and Cons of IPv6 Transition Technologies for IPv4aaS
Author(s)        : G. Lencse, J. Martinez, L. Howard, R. Patterson, I. Farrer
WG Chair(s)      : Ron Bonica, XiPeng Xiao

Area Director(s) : Warren Kumari, Robert Wilton