On 3/25/06 7:47 PM, "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > So my point was, I'd really like to take a chance on some IAB statements > about things that need to be stated about our architecture. They might be > ignored. Would the result be any worse? This is a somewhat bothersome case, because the IAB *did* issue an RFC explaining what many of the problems were with "Unilateral Network Self-Address Fixing" (i.e. STUN). They included a list of conditions they felt that an UNSAF protocol had to meet in order to be published, including a description of a transition mechanism away from itself and towards something more robust. I don't know what more the IAB could have done in order to kill what I think is a clearly pathological approach to NAT traversal (and I chaired the working group that standardized it, so I accept a great deal of responsibility for this mess), but if putting out a document that says "These are the reasons that this isn't a good protocol" isn't enough, well, I'm not sure. But it seems to me that trying to fix it this late in the process (my other .sig is "software longa, hardware brevis") has less to do with architecture and more to do with oncology. At any rate, I do think that in this case the IAB did do their job and it was the rest of us louts who messed up. And I'll tell you where I think it happened: when we accepted the idea that something might be transitional and would eventually go away. Melinda _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf