Re: draft-vandevelde-v6ops-nap-01.txt - "maybe add a bit more on proxy servers ..."

[Baker Fred <fred@cisco.com>]

On Mar 20, 2005, at 7:07 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
> I agree that if there is demand, [proxies and stateful firewalls] will 
> be created. I suppose my position tends to be that some technologies 
> shouldn't be encouraged, and going into detail in an RFC tends to be 
> encouraging them.

Actually, that isn't the case. The IETF documents the good, the bad, 
and the ugly, and the purpose is often community memory. For an 
example, take a look at Transaction TCP (RFC 1644) and the rather large 
number of experimental and historical RFCs. "Experimental" doesn't mean 
"bad", but it also doesn't mean "thought well of" either.

And something that can be immensely helpful is documenting the purpose 
being served, the options available for serving it, and giving advice 
on how to do that in a way that imposes the least damage. Saying 
nothing gives no guidance; saying "stateful firewalls have <this> 
limiting characteristics which can be mitigated if <that> attribute is 
a feature of it and is used in a certain way" can be a very helpful 
thing.

Instead of saying "As a purist I don't like this", I think we're all 
better off if we can describe how to meet network requirements in a way 
that minimizes damage to the architecture - which IIRC is what the NAP 
document is all about.