On 2009-01-30 07:00, Ted Hardie wrote: > At 2:58 PM -0800 1/28/09, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> On 2009-01-29 01:58, Margaret Wasserman wrote: >>> This is an excellent idea. I wonder if there is a way to phrase this as >>> a constructive agenda item? Maybe "the case against NAT in IPv6" or >>> something like that? >> Either that, or simply declare the topic out of scope. Certainly >> it must not block the main discussion. > > Hmm, since the main point of a BoF in the IETF is to determine > whether or not the community supports the working going forward > here, I would have some trouble with a move to declare out of > scope the objections. If you're going to do that, skip the BoF, eh? > > Managing the time so that people can describe the proposed work > and discuss it is rationally is clearly necessary. But if someone > gets up at the mic and says "this class of activity damages my use > of the Internet", that can't be out of scope for a BoF like this.
That's OK, as long as there is space for the counter-argument, which goes "this is going to happen anyway, so we need to write a spec that minimizes the damage." But those positions being stated, they shouldn't prevent the technical discussion. Personally, I think the existence of those two positions is well established and not very productive to spend time on. I agree with *both* of them, by the way. Brian _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
