Also, it might be wise to delete the following two sentences altogether:I would tend to disagree. Although this RFC was written by us, it has gone through 5 rounds of comments and changes so that it reflects a consensus of the v6OPS working group over the past 2 years and at least 2 (or was it 3) IETF conferences. Although it is informational it is not an opinion piece. It explains why the working group made the decision to do away with NAT in IPv6 in spite of real resistance at the beginning. It is meant to explain why NAT is not needed and how features that were presumed to be useful in NAT have other options in IPv6 natively without the patch work nature of NAT. If anything rather than a Best Practices paper this can be considered the basis for a white paper to be used to help sell IPv6 within organizations, at least that is how the IPv6 Forum seems to be looking at it. So stating all of that, I would prefer to leave in the 2 sentences in question.It should be noted that this document is 'informational', as it discusses approaches that will work to accomplish the goals of the network manager. It is specifically not a BCP that is recommendingany one approach, or a manual on how to configure a network. If an informational RFC is to be a vehicle for expressing the opinions of its authors, then I would argue that it should not mislead the reader about that fact in the introduction.
Eric