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

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

On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 04:01:42PM +0100, Erik Nordmark wrote:
> 
> We could make this document deprecate them, but it would make
> more sense to perform such an action in draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-00.txt

OK, I misunderstood what was happening; I thought compatibles were being 
deprecated.

> I think the abstract contains marketing - maybe time to get rid of that.

OK.

It looks like a lot of text is carried forward in the early pages from the
first version which I guess was written a few years ago now.

> "first"? I assume you mean that 3rd sentence in the abstract which says:
> 	They are designed to allow IPv6 nodes to
> 	maintain complete compatibility with IPv4, which should greatly
> 	simplify the deployment of IPv6 in the Internet, and facilitate the
> 	eventual transition of the entire Internet to IPv6.
> 
> I suggest just dropping that sentence.

OK.
 
> It is easier to say that dual stack and configured tunnels are in scope than
> trying to first define what "translation" is for the sole purpose of
> saying that it is out of scope. FWIW I think the definitional problem
> is a hard one; is a http proxy (on a dual stack node) a "translation" or not.

Fair point.   If we say the best way for two hosts to interoperate
is to both support the same v4 or v6 stack, it does beg the question as
to what the alternative is, if its not even hinted at.   But since noone
else has commented I suggest you ignore that concern :)

Tim