On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 19:08, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> wrote:
Its title, filename, abstract, and introduction all say the problems are specific to NAT444. Which is untrue.
I just re-read the filename, abstract and introduction, and I disagree that any of those say that the problems are specific to NAT444. They all do state that these problems are present in NAT444, but not that it's the only technology/scenario/configuration where you might find them. More importantly, I am unsure the point of this argument. Are you trying to say that the items listed as broken in the draft are not actually broken? Because in my experience they are. IMHO, the fact that they are also broken in other (similar) scenarios is not evidence that they are not broken in this one. On the contrary, this scenario seems to be evidence to the brokenness in the others (until we get a chance to test and document them all - are you volunteering? ;). Cheers, ~Chris
-d
-- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.theIPv6experts.net www.coisoc.org