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

[David Kessens <david.kessens@nokia.com>]

Cullen,

On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 10:26:05PM +0100, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> 
> I asked for this change because I did not think it was editorial 

With all due respect, the title change was a clarification to avoid
any confusion between this document and the term 'nat'. To me that is
editorial as it didn't really change the meaning of the document in
any kind of way.

Although I don't believe that this change was really necessary, I
agree that such an editorial change can be defendable from your point
of view: the IESG has a cross area responsibility and it is possible
to argue that while the difference is clear to the people within the
v6ops community, the term might easily cause confusion to the
larger public. To me it was more important to get the document out the
door than having a long discussion on an issue that can be argued
either way, but that in the end didn't fundamentally change the
document if we made the requested change.

David Kessens
---

> - 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
> >

David Kessens
---