Re: FW: Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-02.txt

[Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 09:05:56AM -0700, Fred Baker wrote:
> FYI. Margaret's original message seems to have not made it to v6ops,  
> or at least through it to me and reportedly several of you.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:margaret@thingmagic.com] On Behalf Of
> Margaret Wasserman
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 7:06 PM
> To: 'iesg@ietf.org'; 'v6ops@ops.ietf.org'
> Subject: Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-02.txt
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> I reviewed draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-02.txt, and I found a number of serious
> issues with the document.  I realize that the Last Calls have already
> completed and that this document is on the agenda for this week's IESG
> telechat, but I consider these issues to be serious enough that they are
> worth raising as late objections.

Hi,

I think Margaret's objections boil down into four areas:

1) Some 'overenthusiastic' language.  Maybe some words can be toned down,
   I don't see a huge issue there, but it's a fair point if you want to
   get NAT advocates to read it all.

2) Renumbering.  This should get an extra section I agree.  Note there
   are now movements towards IPv6 PI swamp space.  There are different
   classes of network for which renumbering varies in complexity.

3) Untraceable addresses and host routes - I agreed at the time that these
   seemed impractical to use.

My own feeling is to progress the document, toning down some words, adding
some clarification on renumbering, and pushing (3) to a theoretical appendix.
There's been general consensus on the messages of the draft, and I have seen
good feedback on it.  A major overhaul isn't needed.

tim