Fair Enough. I was not thinking of the behave mailing list as
presuming the answer but I see your point.
On Dec 1, 2008, at 11:30 , Tony Hain wrote:
Cullen Jennings wrote:
I'm sure that the IAB and IESG is keenly interested in this topic but
everyone that cares is subscribed to behave.
While I agree that everyone interested in defining nat behavior is
subscribed to Behave, I doubt that everyone in the application
community is,
yet every one of them will be impacted by the fundamental
architectural
implications of this backroom rush to market effort. There has been no
justification of the need for a 66nat, only wild claims that we need
to do
something now because people will be shipping them in the next few
months.
While I have no doubt that vendors will ship what their customers
are asking
for, it is not clear that the IETF should endorse an effort with
such a wide
ranging architectural impact. Never mind that if the vendors are
really
shipping in the next few months there is no chance that an IETF
document
would be published before there are products on the street....
Hosting this discussion in Behave assumes the outcome, and is
absolutely the
wrong place for an architectural discussion. This should be held in
the
Applications area, and only moved to Behave to resolve the
implementation
details once it is decided that a 66nat is absolutely necessary.
Trying to
do it by having people pre-disposed to an answer and without any
concern for
the impact to the application community is guaranteed to result in
perpetuating an unnecessary architectural wart.
Tony
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
