Re: [v6ops] A way forward for 464XLAT - using BIH

[Hui Deng <[e-mail]>]

Hello all

As I spoke during the last IETF meeting, this scenario is an valid and
deserved to solve it.
I guess people here who are discussing in order to make it a better IETF
document.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6535#section-2.3

"The network-layer implementation alternative will only be able to
  catch applications' name resolution requests that result in actual
  DNS queries; hence, it is more limited when compared to the socket
  API-layer implementation alternative.  Hence, the socket API-layer
  alternative is RECOMMENDED."

I would like to comment below wording based on Dave's writeup during
shepherd.
you can look at the link below:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih/history/

copy and paste:
 The present document does not, however, mandate (or even recommend)
the RFC 2767-like implementation option.  In fact, for the name
synthesis part, it recommends the other option, and for the data
translation portion, no recommendation is made either way.
You could understand only name synthesis is not commended,
for literal, I don't see that statement valid.

Best

-Hui