Hi Keith, > Within IETF, the best we can do is to produce clear guidelines for what > is expected. The harm that will result if the expectations are violated > is not always possible to document in advance. Just look at the level > of denial that's still occuring about the harm that NATs cause.
Hopefully noone things that our document is comparible to NATs ;) My hope is that what we produce is clear, reaches consensus in the WG and is useful. I do think that giving assistance on when some IPv6 signaling is needed and when it is option to use is a good thing (bounded by consensus with the WG). thanks, John -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
