RJ Atkinson <rja.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
RJ> It might be useful for James Woodyatt's notes about these
RJ> technical issues to get written up as an Informational RFC, to
RJ> help document the technical issues/operational issues for any
RJ> new participants here (and more generally for IETF newcomers who
RJ> might not immediately grasp the issues).
...+1
RJ> PS: Yes, I understand this won't stop a vendor from shipping
RJ> NPT66, but we can at least make it clear that NPT66 has
RJ> significant technical limitations and unresolved issues, so is
RJ> NOT part of the Home Net solution set.
more importantly, if said document was written from a SHOULD
point of view rather than a strict SHOULD NOT, it might be possible
for a large buyer of either equipment or services to use it as part of
an RFP. This could be a media ISP procuring settop boxes, or
a hospital procuring digital TV services, or a government department
procuring a managed VPN service, etc.
--
Michael Richardson
-on the road-
pgpiWjW2vWsMi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
