Ohta-san: On 12/3/14, 2:49 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote: > This time to IETF list; > > As I wrote: > >> The problem, however, is that the review comment are so >> surprising that the result of SEMI workshop is very simply >> proven (see below) to be "incorrect and incomplete". > are there anyone who argue against the proof? Yes, because it's not proof. > > To explain it less formally without the end to end argument, > > According to RFC3424 written by IAB: > > o Shipping NATs often contain Application Layer Gateways (ALGs) > which attempt to be context-sensitive, depending on the source or > destination port number. The behavior of the ALGs can be hard to > anticipate and these behaviors have not always been documented. > > but, CFP of SEMI2015 says: > > Can common transport functionality and standardization help > application developers to implement and deploy such approaches > in today’s Internet? > > which means SEMI2015 has, quite seemingly, a prejudice to focus > only on "common" and/or standardized, thus, well known, functionality > of ALGs, ignoring undocumented ones. That clearly wasn't our intent. Rather, you will note that the text you quote from the CFP is in the form of a question. That is a good basis for discussion, not a conclusion, as you assert. Clearly the end to end argument comes into play in that discussion. It is not, however, the beginning or end of the matter. Eliot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature