Subject: Re: (NAT) Request to advance NAT drafts to Informational RFCs

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 16:03:52 +0000

Matt,

First I should clarify that I gave my opinion as a WG member, 
not as IAB Chair - I'd rather say what I think in public
than intervene privately in the IESG discussion of this.

Second, yes if there is any way we can help get all the
issues into the issues draft, I'm sure the IAB would be glad
to help. Can you send me a draft note? 

   Brian (as IAB Chair for the second paragraph only :) 

Matt Holdrege wrote:
> 
> At 10:33 AM 11/27/98 +0000, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >Hi folks,
> >
> >The charter says:
> >
> >> Aug 98 Submit Internet-Draft on what is NAT and how NAT works.
> >> Aug 98 Submit Internet-Draft on NAT limitations and a list of
> >         applications and protocols known to have problems
> >         working with NAT.
> >
> >I would be very disturbed to see the first (which I guess has
> >become two drafts) published without the second. They were
> >given the same date in the charter for a reason. Actually, I don't
> >see a current WG draft that matches the second milestone.
> 
> As has been noted, we have a protocol issues draft available. I chose
> "protocol issues" as they are plain and unloaded english words that anyone
> can understand. If anyone has any other suggestions that would be broadly
> accepted, I'd appreciate it.
> 
> I wish that this was complete, but despite our requests to the NAT email
> list, we haven't had enough input yet. This is clearly a draft which
> requires technical input from the entire Internet community. Perhaps as IAB
> chair, you might have a better chance of getting more input. Maybe a note
> to the IETF list requesting technical review from the community? If
> successful, we would immediately update the draft and after review, send it
> for WG last call.
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, email [email-masked]' with
> 'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message.

-
To unsubscribe, email [email-masked]' with
'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message.

---

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 12:23:46 -0800

-

---

From: Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 07:32:14 -0800

At 12:23 PM 11/27/98 , Matt Holdrege wrote:
>can understand. 

well, maybe I am not included in the "anyone" above :-)  To me "protocol
issues" as a title is rather abstract, tells me nothing about the contents.

I strongly support Brian's position (that the NAT limitation document ought
to move together with the definition document), and I feel "NAT
Limitations" is a much better title.

>requires technical input from the entire Internet community. 

Would very much like to contribute.  As I said at the Chicago plenary,
because the difficulty in WG meeting scheduling and the conceived notion
that people care about RSVP or QOS or diffserv would not be primarily
concerned with NAT, I have not been able to make to NAT WG meetings due to
schedule conflicts.  I suspect that I am not the only one in this situation.  

Lixia

-

---

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 20:00:23 -0800

>Limitations" is a much better title.

I felt that including the word "limitations" was limiting. :)

We are documenting protocol and application interaction with NAT and the
issues that surround it. Some elements of this document highlight
limitations of using a certain protocol or application with NAT. But
limiting this document to descriptions of limitations would be too
limiting. (sorry)

If we describe in plain technical words what NAT does to a protocol or
application, then the reader can clearly see for him or herself what is
going on. 

>schedule conflicts.  I suspect that I am not the only one in this
situation.  

The NAT WG meets 365 days a year at [email-masked]. And the very nature
of contributions to the "protocol-issues" draft pretty much demand email
rather than just the spoken word. So please send your comments to Suresh
and myself and/or to the list. Hopefully folks who have contributions to
make will include as much technical info as possible. Suresh and I cannot
be experts on every protocol, which is why we are asking for input.

-

---

From: Steve Deering <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 16:58:46 -0800

Matt,

Alas, even the plain word "issues" has, unfortunately, become loaded.
Ever notice how computer software and hardware companies have adopted
the word "issues" as a euphemism to avoid ever having to say "bug" or
"problem" or "shortcoming" or any other word with a negative connotation
(as in "Version 2.1 resolves some issues in version 2.0.")?

Steve

-