Subject: [16NG] ARP and NAT for IPv4CS (removing or keeping)

From: Daniel Park <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:21:05 +0900

Folks, 

<chair hat on>

At the last IETF, I got a rough consensus for pulling out ARP and NAT
section from IPv4CS document. AFIAC, the most concerns on those parts are
implementation specific, not part of RFC standard. 

This is an initial straw poll for 16ng folks consensus. 

What do you think ?

<chair hat off>

Personally, those parts can be included in the 16ng deployment scenario
document if removed. That's my personal opinion on this subject.

Daniel Park 

_______________________________________________
16NG mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng

---

From: "Jongtaek Oh" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:18:17 +0900

Dear Daniel

I support your suggestion. There are two kinds of RFCs; standard and information.
The deployment scenario would be valuable informative RFC, and it can contain several useful and
promotional information of IP protocols and applications over IEEE802.16.

I hope the scenario could include versatile view point from Internet and radio engineering to 
applications and business model.

Jongtaek