At 10:31 AM 4/7/00 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> > As we have done with the NAT WG, it is
> > often useful to accurately document the drawbacks of a
> > common practice as well as to encourage exploration of
> > alternatives.
> From my point of view there were significant forces within the
>NAT group attempting to keep the extent of these drawbacks from
>being accurately documented and to mislead the readers of those
>documents into thinking that NATs worked better than they do -
>for instance, the repeated assertions that NATs are "transparent".
>So I'm not sure that this is a good model on which to base future work.

I hate to extend this long thread, but since aspersions were cast...

There were no forces in NAT attempting to mislead readers. There were 
disagreements on terminology. Extensive review fixed these terminology 
issues. Perhaps as others have said draft-cerpa-necp-02.txt suffers a bit 
from misunderstandings and will benefit now from the IETF review.

Matt - NAT WG co-chair

Reply via email to