ietf-list folks:
Given that a single contribution to a WG's discussion (keeping entirely
within the charter) has resulted in multiple personal attacks, I felt
compelled to respond to this message. But as this discussion is really
specific to the midcom list, I've sent my full reply there. If you're
really interested you can read it in the midcom list archives.
Unless and until it becomes a process issue, I'd just as soon deal
with purely personal disageements in private mail, rather than on
the IETF list.
Keith
> --- Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Keith, why don't you start an NAT-Haters mailing list, and take all this
> > > disgust with NAT's there? (I'm quite serious about this.)
> >
> > Noel,
> >
> > I expressed an opinion that this group should confine itself to addressing
> > short-term goals rather than trying to make NATs a part of the Internet
> > architecture.
> >
>
> With all due respect, Keith, you are saying that addressing NAT
> concerns should not be a short-term goal. You are OK with the WG
> addressing firewall concerns however.
>
> But, insisting on this and repeating the mantra many times over,
> even after the WG is formed with a specific mission and chater,
> is really disruptive to the work being done in the WG. The charter
> requires the work group to address both NAT and firewall concerns.
> It is very confusing and intimidating to the folks who are genuinely
> trying to contribute. You jump on the bandwagon the moment someone
> says anything about NAT. Soon it turns into a flaming fest.
> ...
