Re: [NAT] the future of the NAT working group

I had exchanged email with Matt about taking the App Friendly doc to Last 
Call some time ago. Any reason we haven't done this yet? I thought we were 
about done just after Minneapolis, and have been waiting for last call or 
any other feedback.

Dan

At 05:30 PM 10/18/01, Scott  Bradner wrote:

>Matt, Srisuresh and the NAT WG,
>
>         Allison and I have been discussing the status of the NAT WG.  It is
>our conclusion that it should close.  The working group has achieved its
>main goals and published a number of RFCs, it should be seen as a success
>but it is now time to conclude it.
>
>There are two WG documents in progress that would be useful to have
>finished.  One is the NAT MIB, which has potential to be a useful
>document, and we would like opinions as to whether to
>
>1. have it completed as an individual submission (the nat mailing list
>    be used discussion, as we usually keep concluded working
>    group mailing lists alive).
>2. have it transferred to another working group's charter - one
>    candidate is midcom.
>
>The other is the NAT Friendly Application Design Guidelines.  We
>have not seen progress on this and think this can continue on the
>basis of being an individual informational, if energy increases.
>
>We saw insufficient expression of support for the framework
>document, so we do not not think it is worth the considerable effort that
>would be required to revise it to fix the issues that the IESG had with it.
>
>Scott
>
>_______________________________________________
>nat mailing list
>nat@ietf.org
>http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Senie                                        dts@senie.com
Amaranth Networks Inc.                    http://www.amaranth.com

_______________________________________________
nat mailing list
nat@ietf.org
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat