Hi Jen, Thank you for your approval. It has been noted on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9872
Once we receive approvals from Nick and Tommy, we will move this document forward in the publication process. Best regards, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Sep 29, 2025, at 4:48 PM, Jen Linkova <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Alanna, > > Thank you very much for making those changes. > I approve the updated text. > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 4:55 AM Alanna Paloma > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Jen, >> >> Thank you for sending those additional changes. We have updated the files >> accordingly. >> >> FYI - Per your request to add a citation to RFC 6146, we have added a >> reference entry for it in the Informative References section. >> >> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.xml >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.pdf >> >> The relevant diff files have been posted here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-diff.html (comprehensive diff) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 >> changes side by side) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-lastdiff.html (last version to >> this one) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff between >> last version and this) >> >> We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page >> prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. >> >> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9872 >> >> Thank you, >> Alanna Paloma >> RFC Production Center >> >>> On Sep 26, 2025, at 5:22 PM, Jen Linkova <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Alanna, >>> >>> Sorry for the delayed response, we (the authors) discussed the changes >>> and have a few more comments: >>> >>> 1) The short title update from " >>> Original: >>> Prefer RFC8781 >>> >>> Current: >>> IPv6 Prefix Discovery >>> >>> IMHO “IPv6 Prefix” sounds confusing and a bit meaningless. Also, the >>> proposed mechanism can be used in dual-stack networks, strictly >>> speaking. >>> Therefore we'd like to suggest: >>> NEW: >>> “NAT64 Prefix Discovery”. >>> >>> >>> 2) >>> CURRENT: >>> PREF64: Pref64::/n or NAT64 prefix. An IPv6 prefix used for IPv6 >>> address synthesis and for network addresses and protocols translation >>> from IPv6 clients to IPv4 servers using the algorithm defined in >>> [RFC6052]. >>> >>> PREF64 definition saying “from IPv6 clients to IPv4 servers” isn’t >>> strictly accurate, and the double use of addresses felt awkward >>> compared to the straightforward definition in 8781: “An IPv6 prefix >>> used for IPv6 address synthesis [RFC6146].” We should reuse the 8781 >>> definition, especially given the close relationship between this draft >>> and 8781. >>> So we are proposing: >>> NEW: >>> PREF64: Pref64::/n or NAT64 prefix. An IPv6 prefix used for IPv6 >>> address synthesis [RFC6146]. >>> >>> 3) ORIGINAL: >>> Fundamentally, the presence of the NAT64 and the exact value of the >>> prefix used for the translation are network-specific attributes. >>> >>> Your comment was: " >>> As "are network-specific attributes" seems to directly describe "NAT64 >>> and the exact values" rather than their presence, may we remove "the >>> presence of" from this sentence?", >>> >>> so the text was changed to >>> CURRENT: >>> "Fundamentally, the NAT64 function and the exact value of the prefix >>> used for the translation are network-specific attributes." >>> >>> However I'd disagree with a statement that "network-specific >>> attributes" seems to directly describe "NAT64 and the exact values" >>> rather than their presence“. >>> >>> It’s exactly the presence (or lack of thereof) which the device needs >>> to detect, and if there is NAT64 - then the specific prefix value. >>> >>> So I’d either keep the original, or propose >>> NEW: >>> The presence or absence of NAT64 functionality, as well as its >>> associated prefix (if present), are network-dependent attributes. >>> >>> Thank you! >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 5:36 AM Alanna Paloma >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Nick, >>>> >>>> Thank you for your reply. We have updated as requested. >>>> >>>> FYI - Per your response to query 11, we have made additional updates >>>> throughout the document to clarify the usage of RFC citation tags. See >>>> these updates in the files below. >>>> >>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.xml >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.txt >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.html >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.pdf >>>> >>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-diff.html (comprehensive diff) >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes) >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 >>>> changes side by side) >>>> >>>> Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further >>>> updates you may have. Note that we do not make changes once a document is >>>> published as an RFC. >>>> >>>> We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page >>>> below prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. >>>> >>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9872 >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> Alanna Paloma >>>> RFC Production Center >>>> >>>>> On Sep 24, 2025, at 2:22 PM, Nick Buraglio <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 5:53 PM <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Authors, >>>>> >>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as >>>>> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file. >>>>> >>>>> 1) <!--[rfced] FYI - To closer reflect the full title of the document, we >>>>> have updated the short title as follows. Note that this appears in the >>>>> running header of the PDF output. >>>>> >>>>> Original: >>>>> Prefer RFC8781 >>>>> >>>>> Current: >>>>> IPv6 Prefix Discovery >>>>> --> >>>>> Agreed. Suggest perhaps >>>>> >>>>> NEW: IPv6 Prefix Discovery in IPv6-only and IPv6-mostly networks >>>>> >>>>> 2) <!--[rfced] To avoid the repetition of "based" twice in the same >>>>> sentence and >>>>> to clarify "[RFC7051] analysis", may we update this sentence as follows? >>>>> >>>>> Original: >>>>> [RFC7050] introduces the >>>>> first DNS64-based mechanism for PREF64 discovery based on [RFC7051] >>>>> analysis. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps: >>>>> [RFC7050] introduces the >>>>> first DNS64-based mechanism for PREF64 discovery per the analysis >>>>> described >>>>> in [RFC7051]. >>>>> --> >>>>> >>>>> This works for me. >>>>> NEW: [RFC7050] introduces the first DNS64-based mechanism for PREF64 >>>>> discovery per the analysis described in [RFC7051]. >>>>> >>>>> 3) <!--[rfced] May we clarify the citations in the text below as follows? >>>>> >>>>> Original: >>>>> Due to fundamental shortcomings of the [RFC7050] mechanism >>>>> (Section 4), [RFC8781] is the preferred solution for new deployments. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps: >>>>> Due to fundamental shortcomings of the mechanism defined in [RFC7050] >>>>> (see Section 4 for more details), [RFC8781] describes the preferred >>>>> solution for new deployments. >>>>> Agreed. >>>>> NEW: Due to fundamental shortcomings of the mechanism defined in >>>>> [RFC7050] (see Section 4 for more details), [RFC8781] describes the >>>>> preferred solution for new deployments. >>>>> --> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 4) <!--[rfced] We note that some of the acronyms listed in the Terminology >>>>> section are formatted in different ways (e.g., expanded form in >>>>> parentheses, >>>>> acronym in parentheses, and expanded form in description). To make these >>>>> consistent, may we update to have the expanded form appear in the >>>>> description of the acronyms listed? >>>>> >>>>> Original: >>>>> PREF64 (or Pref64::/n, or NAT64 prefix): An IPv6 prefix used for IPv6 >>>>> address synthesis and for network addresses and protocols translation >>>>> from IPv6 clients to IPv4 servers using the algorithm defined in >>>>> [RFC6052]. >>>>> >>>>> Router Advertisement (RA): A packet used by Neighbor Discovery >>>>> [RFC4861] and SLAAC to advertise the presence of the routers, >>>>> together with other IPv6 configuration information. >>>>> >>>>> SLAAC: StateLess Address AutoConfiguration, [RFC4862] >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps: >>>>> PREF64: Pref64::/n or NAT64 prefix. An IPv6 prefix used for IPv6 >>>>> address synthesis and for network addresses and protocols translation >>>>> from IPv6 clients to IPv4 servers using the algorithm defined in >>>>> [RFC6052]. >>>>> >>>>> RA: Router Advertisement. A packet used by Neighbor Discovery >>>>> [RFC4861] and SLAAC to advertise the presence of the routers, >>>>> together with other IPv6 configuration information. >>>>> >>>>> SLAAC: Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862]. >>>>> --> >>>>> >>>>> Agreed. >>>>> >>>>> NEW: >>>>> >>>>> PREF64: Pref64::/n or NAT64 prefix. An IPv6 prefix used for IPv6 >>>>> address synthesis and for network addresses and protocols translation >>>>> from IPv6 clients to IPv4 servers using the algorithm defined in >>>>> [RFC6052]. >>>>> >>>>> RA: Router Advertisement. A packet used by Neighbor Discovery >>>>> [RFC4861] and SLAAC to advertise the presence of the routers, >>>>> together with other IPv6 configuration information. >>>>> >>>>> SLAAC: Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862]. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 5) <!--[rfced] As "are network-specific attributes" seems to directly >>>>> describe >>>>> "NAT64 and the exact values" rather than their presence, may we remove >>>>> "the >>>>> presence of" from this sentence? >>>>> >>>>> Original: >>>>> Fundamentally, the presence of the NAT64 and the exact value of the >>>>> prefix used for the translation are network-specific attributes. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps: >>>>> Fundamentally, the NAT64 and the exact value of the >>>>> prefix used for the translation are network-specific attributes. >>>>> --> >>>>> >>>>> How about this: >>>>> >>>>> NEW: >>>>> Fundamentally, the NAT64 function and the exact value of the >>>>> prefix used for the translation are network-specific attributes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 6) <!--[rfced] FYI, we have formatted the following quoted text to appear >>>>> in <blockquote>. Please review and let us know of any objections. >>>>> >>>>> Original: >>>>> Section 3 of [RFC7050] states: "The node SHALL cache the replies it >>>>> receives during the Pref64::/n discovery procedure, and it SHOULD >>>>> repeat the discovery process ten seconds before the TTL of the Well- >>>>> Known Name's synthetic AAAA resource record expires." As a result, >>>>> once a PREF64 is discovered, it will be used until the TTL expired, >>>>> or until the node disconnects from the network. >>>>> >>>>> Current: >>>>> Section 3 of [RFC7050] states: >>>>> >>>>> | The node SHALL cache the replies it receives during the Pref64::/n >>>>> | discovery procedure, and it SHOULD repeat the discovery process >>>>> | ten seconds before the TTL of the Well-Known Name's synthetic AAAA >>>>> | resource record expires. >>>>> >>>>> As a result, once a PREF64 is discovered, it will be used until the >>>>> TTL expires or until the node disconnects from the network. >>>>> --> >>>>> >>>>> Agreed. >>>>> >>>>> 7) <!--[rfced] As the sentence below reads awkwardly, may we rephrase it >>>>> as follows? Additionally, may we clarify that the mechanisms are being >>>>> used, not the RFCs? >>>>> >>>>> Original: >>>>> Requiring nodes to implement two defense mechanisms when only one is >>>>> necessary when [RFC8781] is used in place of [RFC7050] creates >>>>> unnecessary risk. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps: >>>>> When the mechanism defined in [RFC8781] is used in place of the one >>>>> defined in >>>>> [RFC7050], nodes only need to implement one defense mechanism; requiring >>>>> nodes >>>>> to implement two defense mechanisms creates an unnecessary risk. >>>>> --> >>>>> >>>>> This does read better. >>>>> >>>>> NEW: >>>>> When the mechanism defined in [RFC8781] is used in place of the one >>>>> defined in >>>>> [RFC7050], nodes only need to implement one defense mechanism; requiring >>>>> nodes >>>>> to implement two defense mechanisms creates an unnecessary risk. >>>>> >>>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] The following reference is not cited in the text. Please >>>>> let >>>>> us know where it should be cited; otherwise, it will be deleted from the >>>>> references section. >>>>> >>>>> [RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful >>>>> NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 >>>>> Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146, >>>>> April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6146>. >>>>> --> >>>>> >>>>> This looks like it was added to our repo on 27-Aug-2024 by Jen. I only >>>>> see the informative reference and not any call to it. Interestingly, I am >>>>> unsure how that build worked. I believe we are ok to take it out unless >>>>> Jen has a detail I am missing. >>>>> >>>>> 9) <!--[rfced] FYI - We have alphabetized the names listed in the >>>>> Acknowledgments >>>>> section. We believe that was the intent as only two were out of order. >>>>> Let us >>>>> know if you prefer the original order. >>>>> --> >>>>> Agreed. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 10) <!--[rfced] Throughout the text, "RA Option" and "RA option" are used >>>>> inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how >>>>> they may >>>>> be made consistent. >>>>> --> >>>>> >>>>> RFC 8781 uses "RA Option" so I think we are best to standardize on that. >>>>> >>>>> 11) <!--[rfced] There are a number of instances throughout the document >>>>> where an RFC >>>>> citation is used as an adjective. To clarify that the content of an RFC >>>>> is being >>>>> described, not the RFC document itself, may we rephrase these instances? >>>>> An >>>>> example from Section 1 can be seen here: >>>>> >>>>> Original: >>>>> However, subsequent methods have been developed to address >>>>> [RFC7050] limitations. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps: >>>>> However, subsequent methods have been developed to address >>>>> the limitations of the mechanism described in [RFC7050]. >>>>> --> >>>>> >>>>> Yes. this reads more fluidly to me. >>>>> >>>>> NEW: >>>>> However, subsequent methods have been developed to address >>>>> the limitations of the mechanism described in [RFC7050]. >>>>> >>>>> 12) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the >>>>> online >>>>> Style Guide >>>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> >>>>> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature >>>>> typically >>>>> result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. >>>>> >>>>> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should >>>>> still be reviewed as a best practice. >>>>> --> >>>>> >>>>> Will do. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> Alanna Paloma >>>>> RFC Production Center >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 22, 2025, at 3:52 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>>> >>>>> *****IMPORTANT***** >>>>> >>>>> Updated 2025/09/22 >>>>> >>>>> RFC Author(s): >>>>> -------------- >>>>> >>>>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48 >>>>> >>>>> Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and >>>>> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. >>>>> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies >>>>> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). >>>>> >>>>> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties >>>>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing >>>>> your approval. >>>>> >>>>> Planning your review >>>>> --------------------- >>>>> >>>>> Please review the following aspects of your document: >>>>> >>>>> * RFC Editor questions >>>>> >>>>> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor >>>>> that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as >>>>> follows: >>>>> >>>>> <!-- [rfced] ... --> >>>>> >>>>> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. >>>>> >>>>> * Changes submitted by coauthors >>>>> >>>>> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your >>>>> coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you >>>>> agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. >>>>> >>>>> * Content >>>>> >>>>> Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot >>>>> change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: >>>>> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) >>>>> - contact information >>>>> - references >>>>> >>>>> * Copyright notices and legends >>>>> >>>>> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in >>>>> RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions >>>>> (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). >>>>> >>>>> * Semantic markup >>>>> >>>>> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of >>>>> content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> >>>>> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at >>>>> <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. >>>>> >>>>> * Formatted output >>>>> >>>>> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the >>>>> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is >>>>> reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting >>>>> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Submitting changes >>>>> ------------------ >>>>> >>>>> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all >>>>> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties >>>>> include: >>>>> >>>>> * your coauthors >>>>> >>>>> * [email protected] (the RPC team) >>>>> >>>>> * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., >>>>> IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the >>>>> responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). >>>>> >>>>> * [email protected], which is a new archival mailing list >>>>> to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion >>>>> list: >>>>> >>>>> * More info: >>>>> >>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc >>>>> >>>>> * The archive itself: >>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ >>>>> >>>>> * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out >>>>> of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). >>>>> If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you >>>>> have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, >>>>> [email protected] will be re-added to the CC list and >>>>> its addition will be noted at the top of the message. >>>>> >>>>> You may submit your changes in one of two ways: >>>>> >>>>> An update to the provided XML file >>>>> — OR — >>>>> An explicit list of changes in this format >>>>> >>>>> Section # (or indicate Global) >>>>> >>>>> OLD: >>>>> old text >>>>> >>>>> NEW: >>>>> new text >>>>> >>>>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit >>>>> list of changes, as either form is sufficient. >>>>> >>>>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem >>>>> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, >>>>> and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in >>>>> the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Approving for publication >>>>> -------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating >>>>> that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, >>>>> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Files >>>>> ----- >>>>> >>>>> The files are available here: >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.xml >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.html >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.pdf >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.txt >>>>> >>>>> Diff file of the text: >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-diff.html >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >>>>> >>>>> Diff of the XML: >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-xmldiff1.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Tracking progress >>>>> ----------------- >>>>> >>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9872 >>>>> >>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for your cooperation, >>>>> >>>>> RFC Editor >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>> RFC9872 (draft-ietf-v6ops-prefer8781-07) >>>>> >>>>> Title : Recommendations for Discovering IPv6 Prefix Used for >>>>> IPv6 Address Synthesis >>>>> Author(s) : N. Buraglio, T. Jensen, J. Linkova >>>>> WG Chair(s) : XiPeng Xiao, Nick Buraglio >>>>> >>>>> Area Director(s) : Mohamed Boucadair, Mahesh Jethanandani >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Cheers, Jen Linkova >> > > > -- > Cheers, Jen Linkova -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
