Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-00.txt

[Rémi Després <[e-mail]>]

Marcelo,

The scope of the draft being (quite rightly) comprehensive, a mention of 
scenarios based on APBP should IMU be included.
These scenarios fit in:
- the 3rd scenario of section 2.1 (an IPv4 system connecting to an IPv4 
system across an IPv6 network),
- the 6th scenario (IPv6 system connecting to an IPv4 system),

Their raison d'être is that, unlike those described in section 2.1.3, 
they DO NOT require any NAT64.

(Explanations on APBP, address-port-borrowing-protocol, are in
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-despres-v6ops-apbp-00.txt.)

This complement could be inserted, for example, as follows:

(A)
Title 2.1.2 becomes:
  "2.1.2 Transition scenarios that do not require NAT64
   2.1.2.1 Tunnel scenarios"

(B)
Title 2.1.3 becomes:
  "2.1.2.2 Address-port-borrowing-protocol scenarios
    <Some text on these scenarios, with a Work in Progress reference>
   2.1.3  Transition scenarios that do not require NAT64"

If the principle has some support, I can work on a text for the new 
section  2.1.2.2.

Regards

Rémi