Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-04

[Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>]

Hi Brian,

On Oct 31, 2006, at 6:07 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > the right place to define a new untraceable addressing mechanim.
>
> It certainly can't purport to be a formal spec. But removing it
> would leave a hole. Would you be OK with adding some clear
> disclaimer text saying that it is not a formal spec?

I can live with that.

> >  >   o  On a local network, any user will have more security  
> > awareness.
> >  >      This awareness will motivate the usage of simple firewall
> >  >      applications/devices to be inserted on the border between the
> >  >      external network and the local (or home network) as there  
> > is no
> >  >      Address Translator and hence no false safety perception.
> > [Substantive] IPv6 will not make users have more security awareness.
> > When we say something like this, we are emitting the same type of
> > marketing hype that we deride in the vendors of NAT products.  This
> > bullet should just be omitted.
>
> Yes, it's a bit slack, and naive about the way real users behave.

Based on your indication that there are two issues that you are not  
going to
fix, I gather you aren't going to fix this one, even though you agree  
that it is
slack and naive?  Why not?

Margaret