Subject: Re: (NAT) Request to advance NAT drafts to Informational RFCs

From: Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 23:10:04 -0800

At 08:00 PM 11/29/98 , Matt Holdrege wrote:
>At 07:32 AM 11/29/98 -0800, Lixia Zhang wrote:
>>I strongly support Brian's position (that the NAT limitation document ought
>>to move together with the definition document), and I feel "NAT
>>Limitations" is a much better title.
>
>I felt that including the word "limitations" was limiting. :)

If my choice of word does not fit well, then pick some other words, e.g.
those suggested by others ("shortcoming" perhaps?  I hope that is less
limiting:-)

>If we describe in plain technical words what NAT does to a protocol or
>application, then the reader can clearly see for him or herself what is
>going on. 

Definitely the writing should be in plain technical words on what NAT does.
I was only talking about making the title more informative.

......
>>Would very much like to contribute.  As I said at the Chicago plenary,
>>because the difficulty in WG meeting scheduling and the conceived notion
>>that people care about RSVP or QOS or diffserv would not be primarily
>>concerned with NAT, I have not been able to make to NAT WG meetings due to
>>schedule conflicts.  I suspect that I am not the only one in this
>situation.  
>
>The NAT WG meets 365 days a year at [email-masked]. 

That is very true, and I think many (or most) people on the list indeed do
just that.  For some less fortunate people (myself included), however, our
day job does not allow us to keep up with IETF email.  For now I mostly
take a quick look only during weekend, and very often there are several
thousand msgs cumulated over the week.  Quickly flipping thru msgs gives a
sense of what's going on, however proposing detailed writing takes more
time than I have.
Attending WG meeting would be more time-efficient :-)
But this time I will try to comment in writing (just for NAT:-) in next few
weeks.

> And the very nature
>of contributions to the "protocol-issues" draft pretty much demand email
>rather than just the spoken word. So please send your comments to Suresh
>and myself and/or to the list. Hopefully folks who have contributions to
>make will include as much technical info as possible. Suresh and I cannot
>be experts on every protocol, which is why we are asking for input.

-
To unsubscribe, email [email-masked]' with
'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message.