Subject: [nat66] call for staying on topic

From: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 10:40:42 -0800

everyone--

If I recall correctly, the chartered topic of this list is discussion  
of the specific form of symmetric IPv6 NAT represented by the NAT66  
draft, and possibly continuing efforts to get another BOF scheduled.   
In particular, I seem to recall that we decided discussion of  
asymmetric address/port translation in IPv6 was explicitly OFF TOPIC,  
and that such discussions are more appropriate elsewhere, perhaps the  
main IETF Discussion list.  Am I remembering incorrectly?

--
james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
member of technical staff, communications engineering

---

From: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 13:46:56 -0500

> If I recall correctly, the chartered topic of this list is discussion
of the specific form of 
>symmetric IPv6 NAT represented by the NAT66  
asymmetric address/port translation
> in IPv6 was explicitly OFF TOPIC, and that such discussions are more
appropriate elsewhere,
> perhaps the main IETF Discussion list.  Am I remembering incorrectly?

And what, exactly, is the status of that work?

Rejected by Internet and Transport AD's?

Perhaps we really need another, fresh start...

I don't have any ideas for what that might be - but I'd rather not rule
out someone else coming up with something...

- Wes

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:22:06 -0500

Hi James,

On Nov 4, 2009, at 1:40 PM, james woodyatt wrote:

> everyone--
>
> If I recall correctly, the chartered topic of this list is  
> discussion of the specific form of symmetric IPv6 NAT represented by  
> the NAT66 draft, and possibly continuing efforts to get another BOF  
> scheduled.  In particular, I seem to recall that we decided  
> discussion of asymmetric address/port translation in IPv6 was  
> explicitly OFF TOPIC, and that such discussions are more appropriate  
> elsewhere, perhaps the main IETF Discussion list.  Am I remembering  
> incorrectly?

I _wish_ this list was about the NAT66 draft and holding another BOF.   
At this point, though, the ADs have indicated that the IETF will not  
publish the NAT66 draft, and have indicated that Fred Baker and I  
should try to publish it through the RFC editor independent stream.   
They sent a complicated mixed message stating that both the IESG and  
IAB feel that this draft is important and timely, but they won't host  
discussion of it in Hiroshima, not as a BOF, not as an area meeting,  
etc.  They indicated that if Fred and I want to get it published, we  
should go to the RFC Editor.  I am disappointed about that, but that  
is where things lie at this point.

Given that decision, I don't know that there is any particular topic  
for this list.  If folks want to hang out here, I will make sure that  
any updates to the NAT66 draft get sent to this list while we're  
trying to get it published by the RFC Editor.  So folks who are  
interested in actually publishing the NAT66 draft could stay here and  
provide feedback on newer versions.

For folks who are hanging out here because you would rather spend your  
time blocking my work than doing your own...  You have won.  You might  
as well go somewhere else and do something productive now.

Margaret

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:26:08 -0500

Hi Wes,

> out someone else coming up with something...

When you make your fresh start, could you please form a new mailing  
list?  I am the administrator of this one, and I plan to use it for  
review of the NAT66 document until it is published, after which I will  
shut it down.

I wish you good luck, and (depending on what you come up with) I may  
even join you.

Thanks,
Margaret

---

From: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:48:50 -0800

On Nov 4, 2009, at 11:22, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>
> For folks who are hanging out here because you would rather spend  
> your time blocking my work than doing your own...  You have won.   
> You might as well go somewhere else and do something productive now.

For the record, I'm in complete agreement with the decision of the  
AD's on what should be the proper course of action with the NAT66  
draft, and the mixed message from the IAB and the IESG seems to me  
appropriate, given the amount of controversy on the subject.

That said, I'm expecting to end up having to cope at some point with  
middleboxes like what NAT66 intends to specify, so, despite my  
architectural reservations about it, I'm planning to provide  
constructive remarks on any forthcoming revisions of the draft.   
Hence, my call to stay on topic.

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:51:35 -0500

Hi James,

> Hence, my call to stay on topic.

Your comments so far have been very helpful, and I hope that you will  
stay and continue to provide feedback.  Thank you.

Margaret