Hi Melinda, >On 6/23/08 8:48 AM, "Hannes Tschofenig" ><Hannes.Tschofenig@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> The description is too short to judge your proposal in a >reasonable way. >> I would have todo a lot of guessing. >> Additionally, I have doubts that there is a need for a new protocol >> given that we are not short on solutions. > >I think one question we should be asking ourselves is why we >get so many proposals to solve this problem[*] even with so >much work already underway or completed. Do you think that there are more proposals compared to other areas? > >> So, why are you doing this at all? Nothing else todo for the >next 5 years? > >This, I thought, was unnecessary. Maybe. Still, that's about the time it will take to finish the work. If there some minor differences to some other proposals then one really think whether there isn't a simpler way to accomplish the same functionality without doing everything from scratch. In the STUN Controlled NAT BOF there were more questions on the "why" (related to deployment incentives) rather than on the "how". > >Melinda > >[*] I'm actually not all that clear on what problem Chad is >trying to solve - he needs to do a better job of explaining >what it is he's trying to do. Describing the technology >itself is necessary but not even close to sufficient. Chad should really write a draft. > >_______________________________________________ >IETF mailing list >IETF@xxxxxxxx >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf