Subject: [NAT] the future of the NAT working group

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 17:30:39 -0400 (EDT)

Matt, Srisuresh and the NAT WG,

	Allison and I have been discussing the status of the NAT WG.  It is
our conclusion that it should close.  The working group has achieved its
main goals and published a number of RFCs, it should be seen as a success
but it is now time to conclude it.  

There are two WG documents in progress that would be useful to have
finished.  One is the NAT MIB, which has potential to be a useful
document, and we would like opinions as to whether to 

1. have it completed as an individual submission (the nat mailing list 
   be used discussion, as we usually keep concluded working
   group mailing lists alive).
2. have it transferred to another working group's charter - one
   candidate is midcom.

The other is the NAT Friendly Application Design Guidelines.  We
have not seen progress on this and think this can continue on the
basis of being an individual informational, if energy increases.

We saw insufficient expression of support for the framework
document, so we do not not think it is worth the considerable effort that
would be required to revise it to fix the issues that the IESG had with it.

Scott

_______________________________________________
nat mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat

---

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:43:06 -0700

I agree that we are pretty much done. I had hoped and planned that we could 
finish the NAT MIB document before the end of the year and solicit final 
comments via WG last call and the upcoming IETF meeting in December. To 
that end, I'd like to close the WG with this document as it's final RFC as 
originally planned.

If there is a shortage of meeting slots in Salt Lake City, we'll just try 
to finish the NAT MIB on the list. But I still think we should have it done 
by the end of the year. So I recommend closing the WG by the end of the 
year or the completion of the NAT MIB, whichever comes first.

I'll let Suresh address the NAT Framework document.

---

From: Daniel Senie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 18:24:09 -0400

I had exchanged email with Matt about taking the App Friendly doc to Last 
Call some time ago. Any reason we haven't done this yet? I thought we were 
about done just after Minneapolis, and have been waiting for last call or 
any other feedback.

Dan

>would be required to revise it to fix the issues that the IESG had with it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Senie                                        [email-masked]
Amaranth Networks Inc.                    http://www.amaranth.com

---

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 16:16:57 -0700

Sorry about that!

OK, this is a WG Last Call for draft-ietf-nat-app-guide-06.txt

Please comment to the author and/or the list by November 18th. If there are 
no un-resolvable issues by that date, we will forward the draft to the IESG.

---

From: Kuniaki Kondo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:01:39 +0900

Hello,

Now, I have been writing a draft related NAT which is named the NATS.
Few month ago, this draft had discussed on this list.
Then I am improving some problems and our group which is discussing the
NATS has been making a test code.

In a short time, I am going to submit a new draft.
I would like to discuss it on this list.

--
Kuniaki Kondo
[email-masked]

---

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 22:23:10 -0400

> I would like to discuss it on this list.

The conclusion of a working group usually does not mean closing the
list.  Older lists have continuing discussion of outcomes and questions of 
on the original chartered work, and also can discuss non-chartered work 
that the community finds important.  An example of a fairly active 
list from a concluded Transport Area WG is rsvp.

Allison
~