Subject: [newtrk] Fw: arguments against NAT?

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 07:07:11 -0600

This e-mail appeared a few minutes ago on the main IETF list.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Zefram" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 6:07 AM
Subject: arguments against NAT?

[deleted down to]

> a problem").  I'm now pointing him at some relevant RFCs.  My
question
> for the list is is there a web page or other document anywhere that
> comprehensively states the case against NAT?
>
> -zefram

We don't do much that's "comprehensive" in our work at IETF. The
closest we come is assigning STD numbers that (could) collect all of
the relevant documents on a topic (if they were all full standards,
and if we assigned STD numbers often enough to be useful).

I think I pretty much know what IPv4 is, but yesterday had to tell
someone precisely what I meant - and, of course, STD005 doesn't
include diffserv use of ToS, so it wasn't all that helpful ...

It would be nice if our standards (for any value of "standards") were
more "comprehensive".

Is this more of a newtrk topic, or more of an "organizational change"
topic?

Even on the procedural RFCs, I'm mildly amazed that we're talking
about so many "updates this section of this RFC" documents in IPR, and
in the wgchairs proposal from IESG, and other stuff. Who do we think
is actually going to read this stuff (or even find it, in our current
haystack)?

Editors are way underappreciated.

Spencer

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: Bruce Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:05:09 +0100 (CET)

> and if we assigned STD numbers often enough to be useful).

Additionally, the document that is the 'standard' (eg std5.txt) is only
the first document in a series.  Without the master index document (std1),
you sometimes do not know that a given 'standard' is formed of multiple
parts.

> It would be nice if our standards (for any value of "standards") were

Agreed.  The 'STD' documents should not contain any of the nuts and bolts
of a given standard.  Instead, they should contain nice, friendly language
that outlines the current version of the standard, provides references to
the core, optional and experimental components (links to RFCs), and a nice
change history since the last release of the standard.

But 'comprehensive' isn't the only issue for the IETF standards.
'Accessible' is another important issue.  From the IETF home page
(www.ietf.org), I've found that I can retrieve a list of IETF standards in
just three links, the first two of which are non-intuitive if you know
nothing about the IETF and that 'standards' are a subset of 'request for
comments'.

Having a nice link right at the start to the various document series that
the IETF produces/maintains would certainly make it easier for those
documents to be read by those not involved in the IETF process.

> Is this more of a newtrk topic, or more of an "organizational change"

So far, its things which were discussed at the newtrk bof.

-- 
Bruce Campbell                    -        I speak for myself.
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html