Having reviewed this document while going back to determine if I had made an error in triaging it for TSV-ART. I realized that I could send out my result and also inform Masque WG about a potential concern.

So I think the document is ready for publication and have no obvious and significant transport impact. So I think no changes are needed. 

The one thought worth noting here between this document and activities in WIT area is how this idea interacts with Connect-IP HTTP tunneling done in MASQUE WG. It also indicates an general issue for Connect-IP, and which it is noting in Section 7.1 of RFC 9484 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9484.html#name-link-operation). Namely that Connect-IP is not a link layer and doesn't have a way of carrying RAs. Thus, the pref64 info can't be carried currently. Instead it likely needs a dedicated extension, just like what is being done for configuring DNS: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip-dns/

If the private IP network one is connecting to (with Connect-IP) is using NAT64 and the IP endpoint needs the configuration it needs to get it from a DNS, and one that is associated with this network too. Which thus would require at least the above extension to work at all. 

I think the HTTP Tunneling properties are such that it's future and/or updated specs are the ones that should take note of this general recommendation, rather than the general recommendation needing to note the special case of Connect-IP.