Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

On 11/5/15 03:05 , Howard, Lee wrote:
>
> From: Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>
>     On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Howard, Lee <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>         And so on. It seems pretty clear. Is this language
>         insufficiently strong for you? What words would you use instead?
>
>
>     I would prefer if we used phrasing of the form "<xxx> is considered
>     harmful" or "<xxx> is not recommended".
>
>
> You deleted a lot of context, including the text:
>
> “(NPT66) is not recommended by the IETF.”

For the most part I like this.  It takes emotional trigger words out of 
it.  However, I would suggest focusing on Internet connectivity and away 
from all potential uses of NAT.  I believe the primary objection to NAT 
is in a general-purpose Internet context, and other more specialized 
uses might be less objectionable to some.  So something like;

    Use of NPT66, and NAT66 as a general concept, are NOT RECOMMENDED in
    the context of general-purpose Internet connectivity.

-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: [e-mail]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================