Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > Could we agree on a consensus point that: > > 'Any application developer who designs a protocol on the assumption it > will not be subject to NAT66 may be disappointed' I think it would be far more constructive to tell application developers what they _can_ assume... and to make sure that they have enough "safe" assumptions to implement not only client-server apps but also multiparty protocols with referrals. (And trying to make it all hinge on DNS names is a non-starter) Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf