RE: 3gpp-analysis: IMS/SIP transition [RE: NAT-PT Applicabilty fo r 3GPP]

[<Jonne.Soininen@nokia.com>]

Hello,
(chair hat on)
I believe NAT-PT is already standards track RFC. I'm at least not ready to deprecate it based on the information we have now. I believe the NAT-PT applicability work should give us a direction with the NAT-PT spec. Neutrally, we have three possibilities:

	1) Keep current NAT-PT specs and get it draft standard if possible
	2) Update the NAT-PT specs considerably and recycle it as PS
	3) Move it to historic

I'm not sure which way to go at this point. I hope the NAT-PT applicability work can help us on that.

Cheers,

Jonne.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of ext Pekka Savola
> Sent: 19 November, 2003 14:35
> To: Jasminko Mulahusic
> Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: 3gpp-analysis: IMS/SIP transition [RE: NAT-PT 
> Applicabilty
> fo r 3GPP]
> 
> 
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Jasminko Mulahusic wrote:
> > > As you pointed out the 3gpp-analysis draft addresses these
> > > issues and I have no problems with that. It points to the
> > > work to be done in SIPPING and says that such a solution
> > > could reuse parts of NAT-PT.
> > 
> > i have a question to the wg chairs and/or ad:s:
> > 
> > do you plan to deprecate nat-pt before the work 
> (ims-translator) has 
> > been finished in the sipping wg?
> 
> I believe it's too early to plan either deprecating or embracing
> NAT-PT.
> 
> HTH..
> 
> -- 
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
> 
> 
>