At 12:39 PM 4/20/00 -0400, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
> At 09:59 AM 4/20/00 -0400, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
> >This draft is very incomplete and in my opinion not ready for prime
> >time. The working group has in the past requested lists of protocols
> >and applications which do not work with NATs. I have replied
> >discussing those items for which I am most familiar:
>
> [...snipped]
>
> I think everyone agrees that the draft is incomplete. I've been begging
for
> input for over a year now in the NAT WG meetings and on the NAT list. I've
> also asked every IETF WG chair for input. Our hope is that through IETF
> last call, we will get enough contributions such as yours to get a
> reasonable document together that folks can reference.
I am not on the NAT mailing list; nor do I attend NAT working group
meetings. I consider NATs to be architecturally unsound and that the
IETF and IESG should in no way endorse their use or development.
Just so there is no more confusion, in no way is the IETF endorsing the use
or development of NAT. You've completely missed the point of the draft.
It's purpose is to clearly point out the problems that NAT causes to a
given set of protocols.
Also please do not steer this thread towards a NAT bashing-fest. We need to
complete this document and we need constructive input to this draft. Thanks
again for your original input.