Re: I-D ACTION:draft-aoun-v6ops-natpt-deprecate-00.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

It's not often I get to say "I told you so", but I told you so
in RFC 1671, as far as the PT part of NAT-PT is concerned :-)

I do agree with this draft and I think it pretty much covers
the arguments, so I only have a couple of minor comments:

> 1.  Introduction
...
>    Some additional issues can be inferred from corresponding issues
>    known to exist in 'traditional' IPv4 NATs.  The following documents
>    are relevant:
>    o  Protocol Complications with the IP Network Address Translator
>       [RFC3027]
>    o  IP Network Address Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations
>       [RFC2663]

As well as RFC 2663 and 3027, I think you should refer to RFC 2993.
I doubt if it brings in any new points, but that might be worth
checking.

> 8.  Conclusion
...
>    Although some of issues identified with NAT-PT appear to have
>    solutions, many of the solutions required significant alterations to
>    the existing specification and would be likely to increase
>    operational complexity.  Even if these solutions were applied, we
>    have shown that NAT-PT still has significant irresolvable issues, has
>    limited applicability and that alternatives exist.  Accordingly we
>    invite the IETF to deprecate its usage within the Internet, move
>    RFC2766 to historic status 

Aren't you inviting the IESG to take action? IMHO the text should
be more conclusive, e.g.

 Accordingly, this document deprecates its usage within the Internet.
 The IESG is requested to move RFC2766 to historic status.

>    ... and recommend, instead, the alternatives
>    discussed above.

I don't think that you discuss the alternatives in any way to
justify this final clause. So either you have to add a lot of words
and citations, or change the final clause to

  Users are recommended to apply alternative techniques for coexistence.

Regards
   Brian