Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-0: protocols supported

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
> Question: what is the rationale we include TLS here? souyld we have a citeria 
> of which protocols shoudl be in this req?
> Question: should we move DCCP and SCTP to MUST rahter than SHOULD? (Magnus, 
> is this what you were requesting in your emails before?)
We could require a lot of things.  The main thing this could have 
impact on is the length of the specification and the time it would 
take to develop it; I don't see how it could help in selecting 
solutions because all the solutions could be extended to provide this 
functionality.  In all probability it would have zero impact on what 
gets deployed out there. I.e.: even if such functionality would be a 
MUST in a solution, vendors and providers would likely, at least 
initially, ship a NATxx box that wouldn't support these features.
As such, I see little value in practise of adding SCTP or DCCP to the 
'must' list.
--
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings