Le 19 oct. 2010 à 17:00, Margaret Wasserman a écrit : > Hi Remi, > > On Oct 19, 2010, at 8:49 AM, Rémi Després wrote: >> The word "stateless" being key in the design, having it also in the title >> would IMHO be a useful clarification. >> It could become "Stateless IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Address Translation (NAT66)". > > I've received several suggestions to rename the document, but there has been > no consistency in what people think it should be named.
I was not aware of such suggestions, at least on the list. Sorry if I missed them. > I'm personally happy with the current name, and I don't see a compelling > reason to change it. That's clearly up to you to decide, but which reason you have (compelling or not) to object to the clarification remains unclear. Le me explain more: - The problem starts when one talks about a "stateful NAT66",. - If your draft can be understood as implying that all NAT66's are stateless, stateful NAT66 becomes a self contradictory expression. - Yet, if one wants to translate addresses, a stateful NAT66 makes a lot of sense too . This has become clear since draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security requires for security reasons, that even unmanaged CPEs have a stateful processing at the transport layer. Regards, RD _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
