Re: Action item from yesterday's meeting

Hi Cullen,

--On Dienstag, 23. November 2004 17:31 Uhr -0800 Cullen Jennings 
<[email protected]> wrote:

|
| I have not been participating closely I the group so I may have a complete
| clueless opinion here but ... It seems that people are continuing to
| deploy things like twice NAT, if we can make the protocol work in these
| cases without causing major complexity or big issues to the protocol, why
| wouldn't we? It seemed to me that Srisuresh was proposing that a few

Just to make it clear: The MIDCOM MIB already supports twice-NATs and the 
semantics did so from the beginning.  So in this sense there is anyway no 
change needed.

| simple changes could make the protocol be about the same in the case we
| currently have plus make it usable for a few more cases.

The case presented do not represent a real case in my opinion.

  Martin

|
|
| On 11/16/04 10:19 AM, "Melinda Shore" <[email protected]> wrote:
|
|> I'm intending to get this issue closed in the next week (or sooner,
|> if possible).  Juergen and Suresh have presented their concerns, and
|> if there are other people who have opinions or questions or even
|> just want to indicate how they're leaning, that would be a big help.
|>
|> Thanks,
|>
|> Melinda
|>
|>
|> _______________________________________________
|> midcom mailing list
|> [email protected]
|> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom
|
|
|
| _______________________________________________
| midcom mailing list
| [email protected]
| https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom