[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-06.txt
Tim Chown writes:
Very happy to defer to Brian's wishes. The document has been widely
cited as a draft of course, but final publication will make it even easier
to point people at. I suspect we'll end up referring to is by RFC
number rather than name as it'll be easier to say (like 2775 or 3041).
[BTW if NAT can apparently be confused with NAP in discussion, I wonder
whether LNP's other common meaning will cause confusion that the draft
formerly known as NAP has something to do with number portability for
This is one of the reasons that I was not happy with the new LNP name. I was
afraid that it might be confused with renumbering networks or local number
portability - both of which are out of scope for this working group.
On the other hand I know that the IPv6 Forum is already talking about the
draft and is eagerly awaiting publication as an RFC so it can be made into a
white paper and used in business cases. An RFC number is more impressive
than a draft.
But right now the important thing is to get it published.