Re: [Hipsec] NAT traversal and the standards track work

["Henderson, Thomas R" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail]
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Gonzalo Camarillo
> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 5:45 AM
> To: HIP
> Subject: [Hipsec] NAT traversal and the standards track work
>
> Hi,
>
> we need to decide what to do with NAT traversal when moving to the
> standards track. We have the following drafts:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-nat-traversal/
>
> The draft above will soon become an Experimental RFC.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-keranen-hip-native-nat-
> traversal/
>
> The draft above proposes implementing HIP-based connectivity checks
> instead of STUN-based ones.
>
> http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-melen-hip-nat-mm-00.txt
>
> The draft above, which needs to be revised, describes the mobility and
> multihoming extensions for NAT traversal.
>
> I would like to hear people's views on what to do here.
>

Gonzalo, I would like to see both topics (NAT traversal, and mobility management aspects of NAT traversal) on the revised charter, as the second phase of standards-track work, as we discussed in Anaheim.  I am neutral on the questions of which one of the two drafts to adopt (if a choice needs to be made now) and on whether the nat-mm draft should remain separate or should be combined into one NAT traversal draft.

- Tom