Marc,
Thanks for your review.
I wonder if this document should be instead Informational status. I
don't see here a protocol, more an implementation optimisation.
My personal opinion is that proposed standard RFCs are not reserved for
just protocol definitions -- they can also describe procedures. What is
described in our draft is a procedure, a variation of the bigger
procedure involved in address translation.
In any case, I don't have a strong opinion about what document class
this RFC should have, I'm also fine with Informational if we think its
better. But I'll note that our procedure is a component in some other
works that are on the standards track, e.g., dual-stack lite.
Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf