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

From: Tony Hain <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 21:14:22 -0800

Matt Holdrege wrote:

		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. 

You assume the reader will understand the details of layer interactions.
Many application developers write to an API and expect an effortless
unobstructed transmission of bits to the remote end. Someone has to connect
the dots and state how specific applications are broken by NAT, and similar
functions that interfere with the end to end path. Simply listing technical
issues may not catch their attention.

================================================================
Tony Hain			[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> 

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

---

From: Daniel Senie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 00:24:00 -0500

> issues may not catch their attention.

Tony,

Are you making these comments in reference to the drafts which have been
suggested for publishing now, or in relation to
draft-ietf-nat-app-guide-00.txt? If the latter, I'd like to hear your
comments on how I can expand this draft to improve clarity.

The point of the app-guide draft is to specifically tell application
developers what they need to know about NAT.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Senie                                        [email-masked]
Amaranth Networks Inc.            http://www.amaranthnetworks.com
-
To unsubscribe, email [email-masked]' with
'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message.

---

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 22:37:16 -0800

>issues may not catch their attention.

I think that is what our current draft does in an admittedly incomplete
form so far. Have you read it and do you have any input?

-