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?