Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers

From: Keith Moore <moore at network-heretics.com>
To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker at verisign.com>
Cc: "behave at ietf.org WG" <Behave at ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf at ietf.org>, IESG IESG <iesg at ietf.org>, alh-ietf at tndh.net, IAB <iab at ietf.org>, Fred Baker <fred at cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:18:01 -0500
In-reply-to: <2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C316615572FFBAA at mou1wnexmb09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
References: <015301c94c53$de4ec2f0$9aec48d0$ at net> <DACF609E-29EC-42BF-85A6-8DF68333FD27 at cisco.com> <2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C316615572FFBAA at mou1wnexmb09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>

Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> Could we agree on a consensus point that:
>  
> 'Any application developer who designs a protocol on the assumption it
> will not be subject to NAT66 may be disappointed'

I think it would be far more constructive to tell application developers
what they _can_ assume... and to make sure that they have enough "safe"
assumptions to implement not only client-server apps but also multiparty
protocols with referrals.

(And trying to make it all hinge on DNS names is a non-starter)

Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

References:
- Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to application developers
  - From: Tony Hain
- Re: Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to application developers
  - From: Fred Baker
- RE: Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers
  - From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip

Prev by Date: Re: secdir review of draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-06
Next by Date: Re: Proposed DNSSEC Plenary Experiment for IETF 74
Previous by thread: RE: Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers
Next by thread: What basis we have to construct NHAF for IBGP and EBGP?
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: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers

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