[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: comment on draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-00.txt discussion

To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Subject: Re: comment on draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-00.txt discussion
From: itojun@iijlab.net
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:28:50 +0900
Cc: "Christian Huitema" <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>,v6ops@ops.ietf.org
In-reply-to: moore's message of Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:24:42 -0400. <20030715112442.7b41f6f3.moore@cs.utk.edu>

>> The consensus in the room was that Jordi's draft should simply
>> document the current practice, with all its considerations, and should
>> refrain from making any recommendation to NAT vendors.
>
>I must have missed that consensus call.

	i (and some others) commented like above, but there was no consensus
	call.  christian's statement is a little bit misleading i guess.

itojun

Follow-Ups:
- Re: comment on draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-00.txt discussion
  - From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>

References:
- Re: comment on draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-00.txt discussion
  - From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>

Prev by Date: Re: comment on draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-00.txt discussion
Next by Date: RE: comment on draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-00.txt discussion
Previous by thread: Re: comment on draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-00.txt discussion
Next by thread: Re: comment on draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-00.txt discussion
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread