I understand that IETF has not done a good job in communicating about our work and I appreciate that this is being improved, however I think we need to be very careful. Yesterday, during dinner, one of the discussions with my colleagues, was about this topic. Some considered that part of the delay of the IPv6 deployment was due to the lack of communication effort from IETF. I'm not really sure about that, however I agree that everything helps, of course. My consideration is on the other way around about the latest press about IPv6 and NAT. Obviously the press is not presenting the info in the right way, but this is our fault. I don't think anybody from the community, or the IETF organization has the right to do and interview, and speak on behalf of the community and NOT make sure to review the interview BEFORE it is published. In my opinion is a big mistake and a lesson to learn, because in this case the damage to IPv6 deployment is possibly much higher than what we as engineers could foresee. In my opinion it is necessary a public correction from the IETF, as a community, clarifying that NAT is not needed for IPv6 and what we are working on is not the same as the "IPv4 NAT". Regards, Jordi ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf