Wes -
Thank you for the positive feedback. While I agree with Joel that
digressions of the document should be avoided, I do think the related
work you are mentioning should be cited in the document. I will tackle
this with the next document revision.
- Christian
On Jul 17, 2009, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote:
While I agree that people will continue to use NAT even if we tell
them
not to, just like some people will continue to smoke even when public
policy statements say that smoking is harmful, that does not mean that
we shouldn't say that it's harmful. What's more productive than just
saying that it's harmful is to be specific about what causes the most
problems - and how to work around them - and I applaud this draft's
effort at doing that. However, I think that a lot of the draft
repeats
RFC 4864. Therefore, I suggest the author look closely at RFC 4864,
refer to it, and describe how this draft updates RFC 4864 with more
recent information. Also, I think that Margaret's NAT66 draft is a
specific embodiment of a sincere attempt to make a better NAT for
IPv6.
So I think this draft should refer to that effort and describe what
Margaret got right and where her draft needs more work.
- Wes
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
