From my perspective, the draft addresses the right set of issues. I personally am concerned about asking host vendors (or for that matter NAT and proxy vendors) to do extra work to keep IPv4 running; I'm personally very happy to use the issue as leverage to press for IPv6 deployment and adoption. But yes, the draft is useful in both directions and will identify operational needs.

On Dec 1, 2011, at 1:32 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:

> Hi all,
>  During the intarea WG meeting at IETF82 an adoption call in the
> meeting room indicated that the sense of the room was in favor of
> adopting draft-boucadair-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis-04 as an intarea WG
> draft. There were also several people who raised some serious concerns
> about the privacy implications of the draft both during the meeting and
> later on the mailing list.
>
> We have requested Alissa Cooper to go over the draft and provide input
> about the privacy implications along with some text proposals to
> document them in the draft. This text should be available early next week.
>
> This call is being initiated to confirm whether there is WG consensus
> towards adoption of draft-boucadair-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis-04 as an
> intarea WG draft. Please state whether or not you're in favor of the
> adoption by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please also
> (re)state your objections in your response. The call will complete at
> midnight PST on 2011-12-15.
>
> Regards
> Suresh & Julien
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> Int-area <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area