Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables

To: Ed Gerck <egerck at nma.com>
Subject: Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables
From: Joe Touch <touch at ISI.EDU>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 22:27:43 -0800
Cc: Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu>, "J. Noel Chiappa" <jnc at ginger.lcs.mit.edu>, midcom at ietf.org, ietf at ietf.org
References: <200101312118.QAA15700@astro.cs.utk.edu> <3A789A3E.63620B61@nma.com>

Ed Gerck wrote:
> 
> Keith Moore wrote:
> 
> > I expressed an opinion that this group should confine itself to addressing
> > short-term goals rather than trying to make NATs a part of the Internet
> > architecture.
> 
> NATs are already part of the Internet, and gaining share.

An alternate perspective is that the Internet continues
to (mostly) work despite the presence of NATs.

It is a paradox to begin one standard by selectively omitting
current standards (e.g., RFC1122). 

Joe

Follow-Ups:
- STD-2 is obsolete
  - From: Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim
- First bit of IP Addresses
  - From: Anshul Jain

References:
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables
  - From: Keith Moore
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables
  - From: Ed Gerck

Prev by Date: Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables
Next by Date: [VOIP] Security
Previous by thread: Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables
Next by thread: First bit of IP Addresses
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.