I would agree. I am not opposed to the topic being discussed. But take
a look at this email thread. How much discussion is about NATs, their
proposed algorithms, and their proposed uses, and how much is about
"we don't want no stinkin' NATs"?
Put it on the agenda, and in part of the agenda declare it off topic.
On Jan 29, 2009, at 6:00 PM, 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 my personal opinion, anyway.
regards,
Ted Hardie
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
