On Nov 15, 2010, at 7:21 AM, David Harrington wrote:
I believe I'm the AD you are referring to.
Yes but I wasn't trying to pick on anyone - just trying to understand what the
official IESG position is.
I never said "the IESG is discouraging NAT traversal mechanisms for new
Nope, not in quotes - which was why I didn't put it in quotes. That was my
interpretation of the comments (and I think the interpretation of others in the
room, given what the presenter and next person up to the mic said in response).
But absolutely I could have misinterpreted the comments, which was why I was
asking for the official IESG position.
I said (feel free to check the session recording, (ch3-fri-am 1:25), which is
where I got the following text from):
I did check the session recording, multiple times, before sending the email. I
also considered not sending the email at all, because I was worried it would
become about what you said. I don't care what you said - you weren't reading a
prepared speech. :)
What I'm more concerned about is what the IESG position is, if there is one.
If your core protocol ONLY works with an IPv4 NAT'd transport, I believe you
will get pushback.
I didn't see the ppsp slides as saying it required a NAT for the protocol to
work. I don't even know how that could work - would it check to make sure
there is a NAT??
The solution should also be able to work in other environments, such as an
un-NAT'd IPv6 environment.
Absolutely. And it should work in environments with IPv6 NATs, and in
environments with IPv6 firewalls, and in environments with IPv6 consumer
gateways which block inbound packets until an outbound packet opens a pinhole.
All of those fundamentally require the same sort of NAT traversal as for IPv4.
None of us have a crystal ball to tell us how IPv6 will end up being deployed.
Having said all that, I'm curious what makes the IESG believe they have the
authority to impose any such future vision/goal on WG proposed standards. I
don't believe RFC 3710, 2026 nor 2418 gives the IESG such discretion. I could
be misreading those RFCs, but I believe the criteria the IESG should be using
are in RFC 2026 sections 4.1.1 and 6.1.2, and they're fairly limited.
Ietf mailing list