I understand that IETF has not done a good job in communicating about our
work and I appreciate that this is being improved, however I think we need
to be very careful.
Yesterday, during dinner, one of the discussions with my colleagues, was
about this topic.
Some considered that part of the delay of the IPv6 deployment was due to the
lack of communication effort from IETF. I'm not really sure about that,
however I agree that everything helps, of course.
My consideration is on the other way around about the latest press about
IPv6 and NAT. Obviously the press is not presenting the info in the right
way, but this is our fault.
I don't think anybody from the community, or the IETF organization has the
right to do and interview, and speak on behalf of the community and NOT make
sure to review the interview BEFORE it is published. In my opinion is a big
mistake and a lesson to learn, because in this case the damage to IPv6
deployment is possibly much higher than what we as engineers could foresee.
In my opinion it is necessary a public correction from the IETF, as a
community, clarifying that NAT is not needed for IPv6 and what we are
working on is not the same as the "IPv4 NAT".
Regards,
Jordi
**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, including attached files, is prohibited.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf