Review of 'draft-xu-v6ops-hybrid-framework-00.txt'

["Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>]

Below is my review of 'draft-xu-v6ops-hybrid-framework-00.txt':

Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

---

1) Abstract, the phrase "as many as possible" seems at
odds with trusting the ISP to make informed choices.
Suggest changing this to: "ISP networks may need to
support multiple IPv6 connectivity solutions".

2) Section 1, paragraph 3, the phrase: "including the support
of configured IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnels" should be shortened to
"including the support of IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnels".

3) Section 1, paragraph 3, the phrase: "cannot be sufficient
once IPv4 addresses have run out, because it" is not correct,
because dual stack can still be used in environments that
use IPv4 privacy addresses, which can exist even after the
global IPv4 address run-out. Suggest shortening sentence to:

  "However, the dual stack approach does not allow IPv6-only
   hosts to communicate with IPv4-only hosts."

which is true under any circumstances.

4) Section 1, paragraph beginning with "Each technique...",
add VET to the "For example" list, i.e., as:

  "For example, VET (Virtual Enterprise Traversal [VET]),
   6RD (IPv6 Rapid Deployment [6RD]), Port Range ..."

5) Section 1, paragraph beginning with "Up to now",
change: "ISP networks need to support as many IPv6
connectivity solutions as is operationally reasonable"
to" "ISP networks may need to support multiple IPv6
connectivity solutions".

6) Section 2, third paragraph, the trailing sentence: "Note
that IPv6 autoconfiguration is not powerful enough for this
purpose." does not seem to add any value and may instead
serve only to confuse. Can this sentence be dropped?

7) Section 2, the paragraph beginning: "The hybrid ISP
framework", change first sentence to: "The hybrid ISP
framework may need to support multiple IPv6 connectivity
solutions."

8) Section 3, second paragraph beginning: "In order to
find NATs and traverse them,", this text seems to imply
that *all* applications need to be made NAT-aware when
in fact many/most applications are oblivious to NATs.
Is there a certain class of applications this text is
meaning to refer to? If so, the assumptions must be
stated.

9) Section 4.2 should also cite IPv6 Prefix Options for
DHCPv6 [RFC3633].

10) Section 4.3, DNS SRV is not the only method used for
service resolution. Remove the phrase: "using DNS SRV
[2782]".