[Bp_ipv6] Request for clarification NAT v NAT

[Michael Oghia]

Dear Susan, all,

I agree that this has been a constructive conversation, and I am looking
forward to seeing the final document. Thank you and Wim for getting it
together.

Also, thank you Marco for reiterating that it is a non-technical document.
I also agree that technical references can be added (at least in the
future) in case anyone is looking for more in-depth information and to
strengthen the document. Obviously with topics like IXPs or IPv6, technical
language will need to be included to some extent. However, as one of this
BPFs' resident non-technical folk, I greatly appreciate the readability of
the document and am happy to be a soundboard at any point to check if the
writing is too technical.

Looking forward to working together more in the future.

Best,
-Michael
__________________

Michael J. Oghia
Istanbul, Turkey
2015 ISOC IGF Ambassador
#TCKchat <http://www.bateconsult.com/category/tck-chat/> co-host, 1st
session
Skype: mikeoghia
Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/MikeOghia> *|* LinkedIn
<https:/www.linkedin.com/in/mikeoghia>

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Susan Chalmers <susan at chalmers.associates>
wrote:

> Hi Marco, all,
>
> Thanks for this conversation. The text is closed - it was closed last
> night. Wim is putting in the final touches. I did reference the DNS
> resolution / DNSSEC problems.
>
> This was a very helpful conversation. And held constructively - thank you.
>
> We will circulate the final doc asap.
>
> Warm regards,
> Susan
>
>
>
> Susan Chalmers
> susan at chalmers.associates
>
> *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES
> http://chalmers.associates
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Marco Hogewoning <marcoh at ripe.net> wrote:
>
>> > On 30 Nov 2015, at 19:46, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
>> >
>> >> I fully agree with Patrik (and of course with Marco who supports
>> Patrik's comment). I believe we should mention the impact of NAT64 in
>> DNSSEC.
>> >> My only concern is that we will always be missing something..., I
>> mean, to satisfy everyone's point of view regarding NAT (concepts,
>> functioning, etc) will be almost impossible.
>> >
>> > Sure! Any alternative text that do explain that "NAT within a protocol
>> is ugly but easy, NAT between protocols is more complicated" is fine with
>> me. :-) Even if it is "catch all".
>>
>> As we set out to write a non-technical document, I would not go much
>> further into detail. Also please realise that we are passed deadlines,
>> prefer not to open text any further.
>>
>> Maybe we can include a footnote with a reference to a more in-depth
>> technical document that explains the finer details, anybody got a pointer?
>> Or if not possible to add to the text, maybe we can ask the secretariat to
>> add it to the list of supporting documents already on the website.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Marco
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bp_ipv6 mailing list
>> Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org
>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bp_ipv6 mailing list
> Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org/attachments/20151201/f774fc46/attachment.html>