Hi Remi,
On Apr 1, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Rémi Després wrote:
That said, I think Remi has made a good suggestion here. Calling it
Stateless Address Translation makes sense, I think.
I do believe it will help if we can make such a change as early as
possible.
You believe that changing the name will help _what_?
At this point, we have made a proposal to the IETF for an IPv6-to-IPv6
NAT, and we've called it NAT66. If an IETF WG takes on this proposal
and has consensus to change its name, that's totally fine with me.
Right now, though, there are a few people who want to change the name
(although there isn't agreement about what we should call it instead)
and there are a few people who want to keep the name the same. So, I
don't see any consensus to change the name, nor have I been offered a
compelling reason to do so.
Perhaps it would be better to focus this discussion on the technical
aspects of this proposal, instead of focusing on its name?
Margaret
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
