Re: Action item from yesterday's meeting

--- Juergen Quittek <[email protected]> wrote:
<... stuff deleted>


> This is not a MIB design discussion.  This is a pure semantics discussion.
> Certainly, we could implement the semantics you are discussion in the MIB
> with some effort.  But first the WG would have to agree on changing semantics
> that were discussed and agreed on about a year ago.
> 
[suresh] Agreed. I ran this by Christian Huitema brifly during the IETF and I
believe, he was agreeable to the change. The change, after all, doesnt break
the functionality for traditional NAT and simply extends the semantics for
twice-NAT and other types of NAT.

Anyways, assuming the WG is agreeable to the change, I dont believe, it is
necessary to retrofit this into the semantics draft. I believe, it would
suffice to state the change in the midcom MIB draft, which is currently the
focus of the WG. Melinda - Please advice. Thanks.

> > I
> > believe, we can state early on in the draft where it differs from the
> semantics
> > draft.
> 
> This implies defining the new semantics of PRR and PER.
> 
[suresh] Right, but doing this in the Midcom MIB should be adeaute is my
opinion. I will defer to the judgement of Melinda. Thanks.

regards,
suresh


=====