Subject: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-exprmntl-00.txt

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 13:21:15 -0700

On Apr 18, 2005, at 3:11 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
> I believe that we are ready for a working group last call on 
> draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-exprmntl-00.txt. The proposed status is BCP. 
> This call will end on May 6. Please finalize your comments on this 
> draft or declare it ready for submission as-is.

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 14:10:09 -0700

On May 9, 2005, at 1:21 PM, Fred Baker wrote:

>> draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-exprmntl-00.txt. The proposed status is 
>> BCP. This call will end on May 6. Please finalize your comments on 
>> this draft or declare it ready for submission as-is.
>
>

My only comment on this draft is the way the issues are classified:
Issues raised with NAT-PT can be categorized as follows:
  o  Issues which are independent of the use of a DNS-ALG:
  o  Issues which are exacerbated by the use of a DNS-ALG:
  o  Issues which result from the use of a DNS-ALG:

It would be useful to _also_ identified the issues that are merely the 
same as
any v4/v4 NAT by opposition as new issues that are v6 specific.
This would help any NAT-PT replacement candidate.

	- Alain.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 15:38:35 -0700

It would have been nice if you said this two weeks ago..

OK, what specifically do you want the authors to do?

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 17:19:39 -0700

On May 9, 2006, at 4:44 PM, Elwyn Davies wrote:

> I beleive that the items inherited from IPv4 NAT are basically at the 
> 'section' level in this document.  Alain's point could be covered by 
> adding a paragraph to the introduction which lists the section numbers 
> which are common to any NAT-like solution.  I think the list is ss 
> 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, plus the basic underlying issues in ss 
> 3.2-3.4.

That works too.

	- Alain.

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 17:18:39 -0700

> OK, what specifically do you want the authors to do?

For example, for each of the issue describe, list if this is also an 
issue
with NATv4 or not, then add some sort of reference section at the end
that will recap all that.

	- Alain.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 18:50:17 -0700

On May 9, 2005, at 5:18 PM, Alain Durand wrote:
> issue with NATv4 or not, then add some sort of reference section at 
> the end that will recap all that.
>
> 	- Alain.

So you're looking for a major revision and reorganization of the 
document. Can I get you to have a dialog with the authors on that?

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 19:52:17 -0700

Not necessarily anything major, the suggestion made by Elwyn is just 
fine.

	- Alain.

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 07:46:16 +0300 (EEST)

On Wed, 10 May 2006, Elwyn Davies wrote:
> 'section' level in this document.  Alain's point could be covered by adding a 
> paragraph to the introduction which lists the section numbers which are 
> common to any NAT-like solution.  I think the list is ss 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 
> 2.6, plus the basic underlying issues in ss 3.2-3.4.

I support this; let's not do anything more major than that.  While it 
would be useful to also identify the generic NAT issues (the document 
does), rearranging the text at section level would not be wise because 
the issues are still slightly different and one would have to 
generalize, losing the current NAT-PT focus.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings