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

["Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>]

good.  I could not be there and the mail is confusing me what happened.
this is important work for v6ops and I still think we need to influence
the nat box vendors and isps to use that as one alternative to other
missions in the market.
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 11:44 AM
> To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: comment on draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-00.txt 
> discussion
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>