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

[Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 02:45:20PM -0700, David Kessens wrote:
> 
> 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.

I think it's unfortunate that this name change was made, as it doesn't
really capture the spirit of what the draft is about, and I know so many
people who know what NAP is now in the IPv6 context and who would not know
what LNP is.

I must admit I didn't notice the change immediately because the draft
retained -nap-06 rather than becoming lnp-00 or lnp-06.

The table in section 1 summarises quite nicely the perceived benefits of
NAT, of which 'local network protection' is one part, but not the whole
part.   In section 2, LNP really applies to 2.2 and maybe 2.4, but not so
much the other topics.  So I'm not convinced it's an appropriate 
alternative.

Maybe I'm alone, but I would like the IESG to consider reinstating the
original NAP name.   It's more appropriate, and is well-known within the
IPv6 community today.

Tim