Keith - I argued to keep the term "transparent routing" in the
NAT terminology RFC (RFC 2663). The arguments I put forth were
solely mine and not influenced by my employer or anyone else.
didn't say that they were.
Clearly, your point of view is skewed against NATs. It is rather
hypocritical and unfair to say that those opposed to your view
point are misleading the readers, while you apparently do not
purport to mislead.
I've tried to get an accurate assessment of the harm done by NATs.
Not surprisingly, NAT developers have tried to downplay these problems.
the problem with a "NAT working group" is that it attracts NAT
developers far more than it does the people whose interests
are harmed by NATs - which is to say, Internet users in general.
so by its very nature a "focused" NAT working group will produce