Margaret and Fred's target was limited and clear. The debate shown
that the environment of the target was not. We need to clearly
understand and document why, in order to correctly position the
document and the concepts under dicussion within the Internet architecture.
Margaret/Remi's agreement over "algorithmic NAT66", different
disputes over NAT44, NAT66, stateless/statefull, apparent
contradiction with ICANN's statements etc. leads to think that either
there is a taxonomy problem (there are different NAT species and a
name for each species is to be used) or there is a generic NAT
species with different brands. IMHO this should be addressed in
introduction in order to position the specificities or the specie
that are documented.
If there is only one NAT specie with different occurences there is a
need for a NAT framework document, listing them, the mailing lists
where they are discussed, the RFC/Drafts that document them and the
WG where they can discuss and document what they have in common. The
question NAT or NATs extends to IPv4 and IPv6. As a user I would
also need a document discussing the relations with DHCP and DNS, and
with equivalent sections in the RFC/I_D documenting each occurence.
jfc
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
