Re: NOTE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-01.txt

[Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

A handful more comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-01.txt, which
may be duplicates...

1. Why is IPv4 compatible addressing defined in the first section,
   if it is deprecated?  

2. IPv4 compatibles are mentioned in 3.6 - this should be removed
   (aren't general multicast source addresses dropped anyway?)

3. Section 2 starts "the most straightforward way", though this
   is the only way in this document? 

4. In 2.2 should we mention that that app may or may not be v6 aware or
   capable?  The shin-application-transition draft could be pointed to,
   although it is not a WG item ist looks very good work.

5. In 2.3 there are 2 references to 6bone.  Should probably use something else
   given 6bone is deprecated.

6. In section 3, or in the introduction,  some mention should probably be made 
   as to why automatic tunneling (6to4, RFC3056) is not inlcuded in the
   basic mechanisms (it postdates 2893 but is omitted).

Tim