Re: [16NG] ARP and NAT for IPv4CS (removing or keeping)

Dear Daniel

I support your suggestion. There are two kinds of RFCs; standard and information.
The deployment scenario would be valuable informative RFC, and it can contain several useful and
promotional information of IP protocols and applications over IEEE802.16.

I hope the scenario could include versatile view point from Internet and radio engineering to 
applications and business model.

Jongtaek

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel Park" <soohong.park@samsung.com>
To: <16ng@ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 1:21 PM
Subject: [16NG] ARP and NAT for IPv4CS (removing or keeping)

> Folks, 
> 
> <chair hat on>
> 
> At the last IETF, I got a rough consensus for pulling out ARP and NAT
> section from IPv4CS document. AFIAC, the most concerns on those parts are
> implementation specific, not part of RFC standard. 
> 
> This is an initial straw poll for 16ng folks consensus. 
> 
> What do you think ?
> 
> <chair hat off>
> 
> Personally, those parts can be included in the 16ng deployment scenario
> document if removed. That's my personal opinion on this subject.
> 
> 
> Daniel Park 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 16NG mailing list
> 16NG@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng