Re: [v6ops] WGLC: draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-deployment-04

[Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2019, Ron Bonica wrote:

> Folks,
>
> This ends WG Last Call on draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-deployment-04.
>
> Mikael,
>
> Would you provide the shepherd's write-up.

As part of this write-up I realised RFC2119/RFC8174 language in there, is 
this really applicable for this kind of draft? Do we need more text on 
what this really means?

Can an informational draft even use RFC2119/RFC8174 language in it with 
the boilerplate RFC8174 header? RFC7084 is informational but has a 
different RFC2119/8174 reference section that spells out what it means 
when it's using this language.

There are things like:

"Taking in consideration that discussion and other issues, we can
    summarize the possible decision points as:

    a.  The WKP MUST NOT be used to represent non-global IPv4 addresses.
        If this is required because the network to be translated use non-
        global addresses, then an NSP is required."

So first there is some kind of considerations/summary list and then we get 
RFC2119 language?

Also, the lists in the document are either as 1,2,3 or a,b,c or bullet 
lists with "o" before. Is there a difference between these different 
methods of "numbering" lists?

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail]