[v6ops] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-12: (with COMMENT)

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-12: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I share Ben and Mirja's question about the formal relationship between this
document and RFC 7084.

I also share Ben's confusion about the document's status as not being a BCP --
statements like the following are, by my understanding of the term, specifying
practices that are considered to be "best" at the present time:

* "The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST implement a DNS proxy as
  described in [RFC5625] (DNS Proxy Implementation Guidelines)."

* "The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST support the DHCPv6 S46
   priority options described in [RFC8026]."

* "The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST have a GUI, CLI and/or
   API option to manually enable/disable each of the supported
   transition mechanisms."

If these (and similarly phrased) statements are not recommending best current
practices, then I don't understand the purpose of this document.