Re: call for consensus on proposed semantic change

Melinda,

I want to add a clarification.

The proposed change (the "yes" option) is a hop-by-hop variant,
but the current version (the no option) is not necessarily
end-to-end.

It is end-to-end if there is only a single NAT on the data path.

With more than one NAT on the data path, a NAT will typically
not receive address information of both ends of the communication.

And, not surprisingly, I prefer the "no" option.

Thanks,

    Juergen


--On 21.11.2004 10:22 h -0500 Melinda Shore wrote:

> There's been some discussion about whether or not midcom's semantics
> should be changed so that the PER and PRR inputs would contain hop-by-
> hop descriptions rather than end-to-end descriptions.  If you support
> this change please post "yes" to the mailing list; if you do not support
> this change please post "no."
>
> The change would be reflected in changes to the existing MIB draft but
> not to the published semantics RFC.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Melinda
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> midcom mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom