Subject: Re: [rrg] moving towards recommendation: the current plan

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:08:32 -0500 (EST)

> From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>

    > Can you define "NAT66" precisely?

ROTFLMAO! That's sort of like asking 'Can you define "NAT44" precisely?'!

Going on the principle that a name ought to be reasonably related to the
thing it names (always a bad assumption, I know :-), I think all we can tell
from a name like 'NAT66' is that it translates from IPv6 addreses to IPv6
addresses.

Or, at least, we ought to set that as a principle... and we should also not,
I feel, favour a particular flavour of what I have called NAT66 with the
unique ownership of the term 'NAT66'.

Probably we need/could use a taxonomy of names like NAT66-<foo> and
NAT66-<bar> to describe the various variants of NAT66.

	Noel

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:10:58 +1300

> NAT66-<bar> to describe the various variants of NAT66.

Yes. And I pointed to a draft that defines (let's say) NAT66-mrw.

   Brian