On Nov 1, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Chris Engel wrote: > The one, on list suggestion, I might offer would be to consider amending the > title of the draft to clarify that it is a bit of different animal from NAT44 > simply transplanted into IPv6 > and/or perhaps include a statement in the introduction that the draft is not > intended to address the other PERCEIVED benefits of NAT44 (simple security, > network abstraction, etc).
Ack. Thanks. _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
