[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (NAT) Re: Interactions between IPSEC and NAT
[Mailing list software wiped out the email address of "suresh",
so I couldn't reply privately to this....]
Jim <bound@zk3.dec.com> wrote:
>>> Do we discuss such notions here or do we need to have an Avoidance
>>> of NAT BOF and eventual Working Group at the L.A. IETF?
suresh writes:
> Why are you advocating boycott of the upcoming NAT BOF and/or NAT WG
> at LA? Why do you feel the need to avoid the NAT forum. I do not
> appreciate your doing this.
I think there's some grammatical confusion here. As I read the
message, the previous correspondent was suggesting a BOF on the topic
of "Avoidance of NAT". He was NOT suggesting that anyone should
"avoid" the NAT BOF, as far as I could tell. At any rate it appears
from someone else's description that the NAT BOF will cover "NAT
avoidance" issues anyway.
-Lewis <pseudonym@acm.org>
References: