IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Matt Holdrege <matt.holdrege@verizon.net> Thu, 18 October 2001 23:22 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21319; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 19:22:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA27320; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 19:18:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA27295 for <nat@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 19:18:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from smtp005pub.verizon.net (smtp005pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.184]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21271 for <nat@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 19:18:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from matt.verizon.net (lsanca1-ar5-211-052.lsanca1.dsl.gtei.net [4.33.211.52]) by smtp005pub.verizon.net with ESMTP ; id f9INHMW15341 Thu, 18 Oct 2001 18:17:22 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011018161351.04d3b4d0@mail.gte.net>
X-Sender: res06gzk@mail.gte.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 16:16:57 -0700
To: Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>, Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>, nat@ietf.org, srisuresh@yahoo.com
From: Matt Holdrege <matt.holdrege@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [NAT] the future of the NAT working group
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011018182316.040c0af0@mail.amaranth.net>
References: <200110182130.f9ILUdV07894@eecs.harvard.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Sender: nat-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: nat-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Network Address Translation <nat.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: nat@ietf.org

Sorry about that!

OK, this is a WG Last Call for draft-ietf-nat-app-guide-06.txt

Please comment to the author and/or the list by November 18th. If there are 
no un-resolvable issues by that date, we will forward the draft to the IESG.


At 03:24 PM 10/18/2001, Daniel Senie wrote:
>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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email