Draft: draft-ietf-nat-natmib-09 Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Date: June 8, 2004 For me this is a double Discuss; see below. Discuss 1: Should we put a NAT-related document on the standards track (regardless of the technical quality of the document)? If published as PS, this document will allow vendors to refer to "IETF standards compliant NAT" quite legitimately. Do we really want to do that? Please also consider publishing this as Informational, like a vendor MIB. As to technical quality, I assume this has been reviewed by a MIB doctor; I'm not competent for that. But in general the document seems clear and competent and makes sense in terms of the things NATs have to do. However, I have one big concern. You won't hear this often from me, but I have a problem with the fact that this MIB is defined to work equally well for IPv4 and IPv6, by using InetAddressType consistently. But the whole point of IPv6 is to avoid the need for NAT. We might need a MIB that works for NAT-PT. But there is no reference to NAT-PT (RFC 2766). Discuss 2: why do we need a MIB that works for IPv6 NAT, unless it is for NAT-PT?