RE: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00

["Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com>]

> >> For sure. We know the draft name rules. When we wrote the  draft,  
> >> we were not sure which WG it should be submitted. It seems 
> >> relevant to both v6ops and behave.
> >
> > As a BEHAVE co-chair, I haven't seen a request for agenda time for  
> > draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00, nor any discussion about the draft  
> > on the BEHAVE mailing list.
> 
> It may be that Brian asked me first. He was of the opinion that this  
> is more operational in nature than about the specifics of the NAT  
> operation, and I agreed to give it some air time. We'll see what  
> happens to it.

That sounds fair.  BEHAVE certainly has enough on its plate already.

-d