[anonsec] nat traversal scoping

[mcr at sandelman.ca (Michael Richardson)]

Black_David at emc.com wrote:
> Taking the areas in reverse order, the current sections 6.1 and
> 6.2 of the draft essentially say that NAT, mobility and multihoming
> issues are out of scope.  Whether they are out of scope is a longer

I am going to deal with each one seperately. This email is about NAT.

Q: If you remove the statement that they are out of scope, does this force
    us to deal with these issues now?

I would prefer not to deal with the issue of NAT-traversal until after
we have some running, interoperable code that does connection-latching.

I think that that connection-latching + transport mode solves some NAT 
traversal issues. The remaining concerns are that we have to be very clear 
about what kind of phase 1 IDs that we use --- on that we can get rough 
consensus after we have running code.

As far as I understand process, deciding to make NAT in scope and the deal 
with it in later documents requires adding milestone items to our charter.
I believe that it is therefore the same as excluding NAT from scope and then 
rechartering later on?