Jari,
I found your review comments to be very thoughtful and helpful. I understand
the concerns you are raising, and I agree that your proposed way forward is
reasonable.
I did have one question:
So here's what I would like to propose. The document goes forward but we
make a much clearer statement with regards to the implications both for
applications out there, as well as for subsequent IETF work:
- what types of impacts may be felt by the rest of the network (not the
ISP that is deploying NAT444)
- what kinds of application practices may be affected
- what IETF specifications may need revision due to this (e.g., do we need
to revise ICE etc)
Who was the "we" you were thinking of, making this statement?
(I think I'm asking, would this statement be part of this draft, or
something else?)
Thanks,
Spencer
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf