The IESG has approved the following document: - 'IPv6 Site Renumbering Gap Analysis' (draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-08.txt) as Informational RFC This document is the product of the IPv6 Site Renumbering Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Joel Jaeggli and Benoit Claise. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis/ Technical Summary This document presents a review of mechanisms that could be used for IPv6 site renumbering, analysing them for gaps in tools, protocols and procedures. In undertaking the gap analysis, the document gives pointers to future work that is required to improve renumbering operations, while it also lists issues which it may not be possible to solve. Working Group Summary There is no significant controversy on the gap-analysis draft. Most issues were teased out through review of the draft-ietf-6renum-enterpris draft, which was recently sent to the IESG. One gap that was identified in that review, which needs to be clarified in 7.3, is that appropriate monitoring of the renumbering process is needed to ensure it completes as intended, e.g. to look for old prefixes in use. There was some discussion as to whether "parameterised ip-specific configuration" is the best phrase to use to talk about introducing wider use of macros, etc. The phrase is a little clumsy, but no one as yet has suggested anything better. There was some discussion on DNS tools in the draft-ietf-6renum- enterprise review. In particular about wider deployment of Dynamic DNS support. This illustrates that some gaps are due to lack of deployment of tools that *could* be used, but are not due to that lack of deployment. It may be useful to add a section listing the identified gaps more explicitly; the work that has been identified to date is captured in draft-carpenter-6renum-next-steps-00 (which is not intended to be taken forward, rather be an inventory of work items to progress appropriately). There was some discussion of router renumbering. RFC2894 is old (August 2000) and has not as far as we're aware been used, and it is unlikely that it would ever be used. A more appropriate approach may fall under 'Unified Configuration Management' as described in 6.3. A small clarification may be beneficial. Note revision due to IETF last call comments is the 06 version. Document Quality There has been a reasonable number of reviews for a document of this type, which have led to it being in its fifth version since WG adoption. I have notified the authors of a small number of grammatical errors, which will be processed along with IESG comments. Personnel Shepherd: Tim Chown AD: (was Ron Bonica) is now Joel Jaeggli