[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-06.txt
I believe you have received sufficient explanation from the authors
regarding these changes.
As far as me concerned, I believe they were mostly editorial. At the
same time, I agree that there were a few more changes than what I like
to see happening during IESG review and there were a few quite close
to being non-editorial. We (=me and workinggroup chairs) made the
judgment call that they did not have to go back to the working group
due to their editorial character and in the interest of getting
closure on this document. However, as with all cases where one has to
decide whether something is 'editorial but close to not being editorial',
different people might reach somewhat different conclusions. I hope
that you can see how we came to this judgment call however.
I hope this helps,
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 08:29:22AM -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> Hi All,
> I would like to understand why the title of this document was changed
> at the last minute. I also have at least a minor objection to the
> new title, particularly to what it means by the word "protection".
> The word "protection" in the original title referred to protecting
> the end-to-end Internet architecture (the network architecture) from
> NAT. In other words, we could use certain facilities in IPv6 instead
> of NAT as a way to protect the end-to-end nature of IPv6 networks.
> What does the word protection mean now, though? That the facilities
> in this document protect the local network? From what?
> On Jan 11, 2007, at 3:50 PM, Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> >This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Operations Working Group of
> >the IETF.
> > Title : Local Network Protection for IPv6
> > Author(s) : G. Van de Velde, et al.
> > Filename : draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-06.txt
> > Pages : 46
> > Date : 2007-1-11