Re: Consensus for moving NAT-PT to experimental?

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

> the right thing to do would be to
> revise the RFC to take out DNS-ALG sections and include use-case scenarios,
> limitations and applicability statement.

I understood that was the plan, but with the first step being
to reclassify the RFC to make it clear there are serious issues
with it. I support the reclassification.

    Brian

Pyda Srisuresh wrote:
> Hi Pekka,
>
> I disagree. NAT-PT is not experimental. There are customers with real use-case
> scenarios that require and use the NAT-PT mechanism today. The NAT-PT use-case
> scenarios have no other transition alternatives. Making the RFC experimental
> does not make sense. 
>
> As Tony and others pointed out in the past, the right thing to do would be to
> revise the RFC to take out DNS-ALG sections and include use-case scenarios,
> limitations and applicability statement.
>
> regards,
> suresh
>
> --- Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> wrote:
>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > (co-chair hat on)
> >
> > At the meeting, there was almost unanimous consensus for moving NAT-PT 
> > to experimental.
> >
> > The approach which seemed to have significant support was splitting 
> > the document draft-aoun-v6ops-natpt-deprecate-00.txt in two: the one 
> > describing issues (which would also request the reclassification), and 
> > one describing different usage (or non-usage) scenarios.
> >
> > If you believe this is a bad approach, please voice your concerns 
> > within a week, by 18th November.  Thanks!
> >
> > (hat off)
> >
> > --
> > Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> > Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
>
>
>
> =====