Re: Consensus for moving NAT-PT to experimental?

[Pyda Srisuresh <srisuresh@yahoo.com>]

OK, Got it. Thanks.

regards,
suresh

--- Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com> wrote:

> > 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
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > =====
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 


=====