On Oct 30, 2010, at 8:30 AM, Scott Brim wrote: > Agree completely with this. "NAT66" was originally bound to a stateless > approach and that binding should hold precedence unless overwhelmed by > what latecomers say.
Just like the word "hacker" was originally NOT used to refer to someone acting out of malice or recklessness. We know how well that worked out. Look, this proposal really does look to be significantly useful. If the authors can see their way to putting in some sort generalizable support for letting hosts/apps find out their external/global addresses (by generalizable, I mean a protocol that can be extended for stateful NA[p]T and NA[p]T between v4 and v6 also), I'm inclined to support it. But insisting that it be named a particular way doesn't help the protocol work better, and it really does seem to hinder understanding of the protocol. I'd hate to see this protocol fail to get due consideration in the wider community because people didn't understand what it did because of the name. I've made that mistake before too, more than once actually, and in both cases my choice of name made it far more difficult for people to look at the proposal itself. The name of the proposal is surely the least important aspect from a technical point-of-view. Names are for marketing. Please chose another name that is optimized to help people understand what this does. Keith _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
