No consensus on proposed change

Mary has indicated that Nortel has IPR claims potentially relating to the 
semantics document.  These do not extend to the MIB.  Our lawyers sent a number of 
disclosures to the IETF on November 25, as a result of their review.  These cover:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rosenberg-midcom-turn-06.txt
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3303.txt
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3304.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-midcom-semantics-08.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nsis-nslp-natfw-04.txt

Having said that, I support your decision to terminate discussion on the 
outstanding issue for the MIB.  The argument has in fact been going on for at 
least half a year.  I dropped out of discussions a long time ago when I decided 
NATs and firewalls were more complicated than I had envisioned, but too few people 
are taking part in the discussion to give a revised outcome any sort of legitimacy.

If the restricted view of the MIDCOM MIB becomes a practical issue at some point 
in the future, there is always the possibility to cover the deficit with an extension.
-- 
Tom Taylor
Carrier VoIP Standards Development
Nortel Networks
Phone +1 613 763 1496  (ESN 393-1496)
E-mail: [email protected]