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

["JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>]

Hi,

I agree with Itojun, my feeling is that the WG chairs requested me to update the document, and I will do so with the comments from
the WG and any emails that I receive in the next two weeks, more or less.

So please, all, provide your inputs !

Regards,
Jordi

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <itojun@iijlab.net>
To: "Keith Moore" <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Cc: "Christian Huitema" <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>; <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 5:28 PM
Subject: Re: comment on draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-00.txt discussion


> >> 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
>

*****************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on-line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com