Re: Bump in the Wire w/ attachment

[Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>]

On Oct 12, 2006, at 12:11 AM, Ed Jankiewicz wrote:

> The advice I would give the authors would be to continue to make  
> this case, but they should submit the draft as an individual  
> contribution (rather than requesting it be a WG work item which may  
> reignite the controversy over whether the v6ops WG wants to  
> "reinvent NAT-PT".) I hope the WG chairs and members would be at  
> least willing to discuss this draft at IETF 67. I will be there,  
> and would like to see this work progress in a way that satisfies  
> the questions raised by the WG and IETF community, protects other  
> network elements and operators from any actual ill effects (not  
> just the same "translation BAD" argument) and gives end-users a  
> viable method to recover their investment in network-centric  
> applications and systems.

In private email, I discussed this briefly with Paul, and concluded  
that since (a) it is a transition effort and the working group is not  
supposed to work on transition approaches, and (b) it is as you say a  
redesign of an existing facility that has some fairly serious issues,  
that it was not appropriate - that we would wind up having the  
discussion yet again of whether translation is a rational long-term  
strategy as compared to upgrading the relevant equipment, installing  
a tunnel, or leaving IPv4 and IPv6 running in parallel, as opposed to  
actually discussing the document.

I'm willing to hear that I called this wrong. Comments?