-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>> "Vernon" == Vernon Schryver <vjs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: Vernon> Perhaps more NAT RFCs would help; they couldn't hurt much. Vernon> They'd be a lot of work and would certainly be ignored by Vernon> many people who consider themselves designers. I can't Vernon> personally get enthused about telling people things that are Vernon> obvious and that will be ignored, like much of what would go Vernon> in new NAT RFCs. They would help yes. They do have multiple costs: most people time. As you say. I can not agree more with what you said. The only value I can see to them is as a stick. Given RFC3022, RFC2663, RFC3235, etc. do we really need more carrots? Since I don't anticipate being able to book an RFC1812 compliant hotel room anytime, I'm not sure that I see the point in expending more energy. - -- ] "Elmo went to the wrong fundraiser" - The Simpson | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON |net architect[ ] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[ ] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Finger me for keys iQCVAwUBQVMhIIqHRg3pndX9AQFIbAP/QWxSeYhGMHknOmYrRUnH8DWuwfsD6Vaz eA45aK+wNN7Hc8Y4OqjMDz29pTjXEJloWOkEUleaKF2ZDBmSlXjj5bH0WlbAXJ/8 K93DSmZ1zizLMb8pVNnZjIddtJGLgYMpnF90GeU9Wv/KHhBNrnzraclz25nZKunr 3631Vmv9yZY= =DYJN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf