Subject: RE: Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic (Reasons to Move NAT-PT to Historic Status) to Informational RFC

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:21:07 -0800

At 6:31 PM -0800 2/28/07, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>
>This is a design choice in the protocol, one that I would see as a layering violation. Application layer protocols should not be talking about IP addresses.

Network management protocols are arguably at the application layer (and
they certainly feed into applications in the traditional sense).  Many of those need to
talk about interface addresses and the addresses of the other ends of flows.

This is, naturally, just one example of an application layer protocol that is
an exception to the preference you express.  Once you get past all of the
exceptions, though, things look to me more and more like engineering
judgement calls based on trade-offs rather than hard-and-fast rules.

With a different architecture, we would have gotten different trade-offs (and
we might yet), but from where we are now, I think we have to acknowledge
that this engineering choice is not going away.

				Ted Hardie

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf