On 8 July 2016 at 18:36, Erik Kline <[email protected]> wrote: >>>Section 2.1.2 is far too permissive for my tastes. We need to be able >>>to say that ULA+IPv6 NAT is NOT RECOMMENDED by the IETF. >> >> I changed the end of the section 2.1.2 to reflect this. Albeit, I am >> unsure whether there is a clear statement by the IETF about not using ULA >> + NPTv6 (and I would LOVE to see such a statement) > > Then please go ahead and make that statement in your document. > > I, for one, will help defend it. :-) >
Depending on an experimental RFC for your security sounds like a really bad idea to me! > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
