[v4tov6transition] Fwd: draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

We have a transition guideline in last call in the IPv6 Operations Working Group. Let me take this opportunity to invite all of us to join [e-mail] if we have not, read the document, and comment on it on [e-mail] in the context of that last call.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines
  "Guidelines for Using IPv6 Transition Mechanisms", Jari Arkko, Fred
  Baker, 12-Jul-10

I gather that the operators on this list are of the opinion that the documents on the table, which include that one and the documents it refers to - especially 

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4213.txt
4213 Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers. E.
     Nordmark, R. Gilligan. October 2005. (Format: TXT=58575 bytes)
     (Obsoletes RFC2893) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)

but also various other RFCs and Internet Drafts - don't give them the guidance they are looking for. On this list, would it be appropriate to ask operators to tell us what questions remain on the table?

If, for example, operators are looking for a document that describes how to use IPv4/IPv4 NATs to extend the IPv4 domain while the deploy IPv6, so that their customers continue to have some level of IPv4 support during the transition, I wonder to what extent 

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-incremental-cgn
  "An Incremental Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) for IPv6 Transition", Sheng
  Jiang, Dayong Guo, Brian Carpenter, 18-Jun-10

addresses their questions. I have scheduled it for IPv6 Operations Working Group last Call starting on the 12th of September, but would be happy to see comments on [e-mail] prior to that.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Fred Baker <[e-mail]>
> Date: August 15, 2010 11:00:04 AM PDT
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail]
> Subject: draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC
> 
> This is to initiate a two week working group last call of draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines. Please read it now. If you find nits (spelling errors, minor suggested wording changes, etc), comment to the authors; if you find greater issues, such as disagreeing with a statement or finding additional issues that need to be addressed, please post your comments to the list.
> 
> We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of the document as well as its content. If you have read the document and believe it to be of operational utility, that is also an important comment to make.