Subject: Re: " Internal-external" rather than "interior-exterior" in CPE-simple-security draft

From: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 08:32:04 -0600

This was a deliberate choice to use the terminology of routing domains  
and not address realms.  There is no NAT here, only routing, so I felt  
it was important to retain consistency with the lexicon of routing,  
and not use the word contrived for the purpose of distinguishing  
between address realms and routing domains.

--jhw (sent from my phone)

On Apr 30, 2010, at 1:53, Rémi Després <[email-masked]> wrote:

> James,
>
> The draft uses "interior" and "exterior", while the traditional  
> vocabulary for NATs is AFAIK "internal" and "external" (e.g. in RFC  
> 4787).
> A suggestion would be to align the vocabulary.
>
> Regard,
> RD
>
>