Re: Informational RFC to be: draft-templin-isatapv4-02.txt

[The IESG <iesg-secretary at ietf.org>]

The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Transmission of IPv4 
Packets over ISATAP Interfaces' <draft-templin-isatapv4-02.txt> as an 
Informational RFC. 

The IESG would also like the IRSG or RFC-Editor to review the comments in 
the datatracker 
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=18052&rfc_flag=0) 
related to this document and determine whether or not they merit 
incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot 
and the comment log. 

The IESG contact person is Jari Arkko.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-templin-isatapv4-02.txt


The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html.

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

Technical Summary

   This is an update to RFC 5214 to support IPv4 unicast and
   multicast over IPv4, similar to IPv6 over IPv4 already supported.

Working Group Summary

   This is an independent submission and nothing to do with the
   IETF or its WGs.

Document Quality

   Unverified.

Personnel

   Jari Arkko is the responsible AD for performing the RFC 3932
   check.

RFC Editor Note

  Response 2 from RFC 3932 Section 3 applies:

  2. The IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in IETF
     WGs such as V6OPS, BEHAVE, and SOFTWIRE but this does not prevent
     publishing.

  This approval is conditional on the acceptance of the following
  edit, in order to avoid redefining RFC 3330 address block for
  a new use:

  OLD:
  L3ADDR is taken from a global-scoped IPv4 prefix (e.g., 192.0.2/24).
  NEW:
  L3ADDR is taken from a public IPv4 prefix.

  Also, change s/global-scoped IPv4 prefix/public IPv4 prefix/
  everywhere.

IESG Note

  The following IESG note should be added to the document
  (RFC 3932 note number 2 from Section 4):

    This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard.
    The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for
    any purpose and in particular notes that the decision to publish
    is not based on IETF review for such things as security,
    congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed
    protocols.  The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at
    its discretion.  Readers of this document should exercise caution
    in evaluating its value for implementation and deployment.  See
    RFC 3932 for more information.