On Oct 12, 2006, at 12:11 AM, Ed Jankiewicz wrote:
The advice I would give the authors would be to continue to make this
case, but they should submit the draft as an individual contribution
(rather than requesting it be a WG work item which may reignite the
controversy over whether the v6ops WG wants to "reinvent NAT-PT".) I
hope the WG chairs and members would be at least willing to discuss
this draft at IETF 67. I will be there, and would like to see this
work progress in a way that satisfies the questions raised by the WG
and IETF community, protects other network elements and operators
from any actual ill effects (not just the same "translation BAD"
argument) and gives end-users a viable method to recover their
investment in network-centric applications and systems.
In private email, I discussed this briefly with Paul, and concluded
that since (a) it is a transition effort and the working group is not
supposed to work on transition approaches, and (b) it is as you say a
redesign of an existing facility that has some fairly serious issues,
that it was not appropriate - that we would wind up having the
discussion yet again of whether translation is a rational long-term
strategy as compared to upgrading the relevant equipment, installing a
tunnel, or leaving IPv4 and IPv6 running in parallel, as opposed to
actually discussing the document.
I'm willing to hear that I called this wrong. Comments?