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

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

As a co-author (and of course I was recused in
the IESG discussion) my main concern is to
see the RFC published ASAP. Despite having personally
invented the NAP acronym, I would prefer no further
change so that the RFC Editor team can do their job
as quickly as possible.

    Brian

On 2007-03-27 00:21, Mark Smith wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 08:38:26 -0700
> "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
>
> > > 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.
> > Seconded.
>
> While I generally prefer NAP over LNP, I wonder if it is really
> necessary to give this group of techniques a formal name. I think
> giving it a formal name starts to imply a fixed set of techniques,
> implying that there won't be additions to the set.
>
> How about titling it "NAT alternatives when using IPv6" or something
> similarly descriptive ?
>
> Regards,
> Mark.