[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic (Reasons to Move NAT-PT to Historic Status) to Informational RFC

To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic (Reasons to Move NAT-PT to Historic Status) to Informational RFC
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 14:24:06 +0100
Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
In-reply-to: <E1HM7m0-0002pd-Py@stiedprstage1.ietf.org>
Organization: IBM
References: <E1HM7m0-0002pd-Py@stiedprstage1.ietf.org>
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207)

I think it's important to publish this document, to make it
clear why NAT-PT is a solution of very dubious value.

    Brian

On 2007-02-27 20:14, The IESG wrote:

The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops) toconsider the following document:
- 'Reasons to Move NAT-PT to Historic Status '
   <draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic-00.txt> as an Informational RFC

This document recommends that the IESG reclassifies RFC 2766 from
Standards Track to Experimental status.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic (Reasons to Move NAT-PT to Historic Status) to Informational RFC
  - From: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>

Prev by Date: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-routing-guidelines-01.txt
Next by Date: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic (Reasons to Move NAT-PT to Historic Status) to Informational RFC
Previous by thread: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-routing-guidelines-01.txt
Next by thread: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic (Reasons to Move NAT-PT to Historic Status) to Informational RFC
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread