--- Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> wrote:
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.
That is just not true. NAT WG attracts NAT users just as much and
often more than NAT developers. It is perhaps your opinion that
NAT harms more people than it benefits that is tainted.
so by its very nature a "focused" NAT working group will produce
misleading results.
Sorry.. Your conclusion is based on a wrong premise.
Keith
regards,
suresh
=====
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com