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

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-06.txt


Hi Margaret,
I asked for this change because I did not think it was editorial - I was involved with several conversation where it introduced significant confusion to the conversation. There was certainly differences of opinions on how much confusion this would cause or if it would matter but I think it was pretty clear in the conversations that there were problems if we were talking about nat or nap - it got worse with speakers where english was not their best languages. I only asked for this to be changed because I thought it was causing confusion in exactly the community that most needed to understand this document and I believed the document would have a higher chance of meeting it's goals without this confusion. No one brought up a down side to changing the name other than the possible delay but we were making plenty of other changes and I don't think this introduced any additional delay.
I'm sure I make mistakes, if you think this is one of them, catch me over coffee at some break and we can talk about this. 

Thanks, Cullen


On Mar 16, 2007, at 12:21 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:



Hi David,
Yes, the reasons for the title change were explained to me. I don't fully understand why the IESG had a blocking problem with the original title, but I agree with the decision to change the title, if that was necessary to publish the document.
In general, it is hard for me to see how the IESG could have blocking problems with a document that could be addressed by purely editorial changes... So, I'd prefer to see all discuss resolutions sent to the WG mailing list. However, I'm reasonably happy with the results in this case, so I see no reason for further discussion. 

Margaret


On Mar 14, 2007, at 2:33 PM, David Kessens wrote:



Margaret,

I believe you have received sufficient explanation from the authors
regarding these changes.

As far as me concerned, I believe they were mostly editorial. At the
same time, I agree that there were a few more changes than what I like 
to see happening during IESG review and there were a few quite close
to being non-editorial. We (=me and workinggroup chairs) made the
judgment call that they did not have to go back to the working group
due to their editorial character and in the interest of getting
closure on this document. However, as with all cases where one has to
decide whether something is 'editorial but close to not being editorial', 
different people might reach somewhat different conclusions. I hope
that you can see how we came to this judgment call however.

I hope this helps,

David Kessens
---

On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 08:29:22AM -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote:


Hi All,
I would like to understand why the title of this document was changed 
at the last minute.  I also have at least a minor objection to the
new title, particularly to what it means by the word "protection".

The word "protection" in the original title referred to protecting
the end-to-end Internet architecture (the network architecture) from
NAT. In other words, we could use certain facilities in IPv6 instead 
of NAT as a way to protect the end-to-end nature of IPv6 networks.

What does the word protection mean now, though?  That the facilities
in this document protect the local network?  From what?

Margaret


On Jan 11, 2007, at 3:50 PM, Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote:


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Operations Working Group of
the IETF.

	Title		: Local Network Protection for IPv6
	Author(s)	: G. Van de Velde, et al.
	Filename	: draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-06.txt
	Pages		: 46
	Date		: 2007-1-11