Marc, Thanks for your review.
I wonder if this document should be instead Informational status. I don't see here a protocol, more an implementation optimisation.
My personal opinion is that proposed standard RFCs are not reserved for just protocol definitions -- they can also describe procedures. What is described in our draft is a procedure, a variation of the bigger procedure involved in address translation.
In any case, I don't have a strong opinion about what document class this RFC should have, I'm also fine with Informational if we think its better. But I'll note that our procedure is a component in some other works that are on the standards track, e.g., dual-stack lite.
Jari _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf