-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"Vernon" == Vernon Schryver <vjs(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com>
Vernon> Perhaps more NAT RFCs would help; they couldn't hurt much.
Vernon> They'd be a lot of work and would certainly be ignored by
Vernon> many people who consider themselves designers. I can't
Vernon> personally get enthused about telling people things that are
Vernon> obvious and that will be ignored, like much of what would go
Vernon> in new NAT RFCs.
They would help yes.
They do have multiple costs: most people time.
As you say.
I can not agree more with what you said.
The only value I can see to them is as a stick.
Given RFC3022, RFC2663, RFC3235, etc. do we really need more carrots?
Since I don't anticipate being able to book an RFC1812 compliant hotel
room anytime, I'm not sure that I see the point in expending more
] "Elmo went to the wrong fundraiser" - The Simpson | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] mcr(_at_)xelerance(_dot_)com http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Finger me for keys
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ietf mailing list