Re: [nat66] The case for the name SAT66 to mean stateless NAT66 - introducing MW-NAT66

[Rémi Després <[e-mail]>]

Margaret Wasserman  -  le (m/j/a) 4/1/09 8:52 PM:
> On Apr 1, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Rémi Després wrote:
>>
>>> That said, I think Remi has made a good suggestion here. Calling it 
>>> Stateless Address Translation makes sense, I think.
>>
>> I do believe it will help if we can make such a change as early as 
>> possible.
> 
> You believe that changing the name will help _what_?

As I said, it would help avoiding to create and maintain confusion (it 
was not a fools' day joke).

(There are and there will be NAT66s that are just NAT44s trivially 
augmented to support IPv6 addresses in their mapping tables. Expecting 
that they no longer would be authorized to be called NAT66, in full 
consistency with NAT44, NAT64, and NAT46, is completely unrealistic.)


> At this point, we have made a proposal to the IETF for an IPv6-to-IPv6 
> NAT, and we've called it NAT66.  If an IETF WG takes on this proposal 
> and has consensus to change its name, that's totally fine with me.  

If I get it right, you consider the word NAT66 has been preempted, and 
should be used only your particular proposal.

I don't think it would not be wise to agree.

BTW, note that before  draft-mrw-behave-nat66-00 was even posted the 
word NAT66 was used in a mail of Dan Wing, in which he said "NAT66 is 
still a third rail. I don't want to go there".

> Perhaps it would be better to focus this discussion on the technical 
> aspects of this proposal, instead of focusing on its name?

Well, unless some others which to pursue now (choosing early a good 
enough terminology is also important in practice), I will leave the 
subject for the time being.

I will now keep using NAT66 as a generic term for IPv6-to-IPv6, and 
refer to your design as _MW-NAT66_, hoping that others might do the same 
to avoid a disturbing ambiguity.

Regards,

RD