and a technology that only works correctly on the server end seems
like a matter for the server's network rather than the public
Internet - and therefore not something which should be standardized by IETF.
Much the same logic can be applied to NAT (the way it's usually implemented).
true.
Both have issues, both have proponents, and both will be done even more
brokenly if there's no standard for them.
yes, this is the dilemma. IETF has a hard time saying "if you're going to
do this bad thing, please do it in this way". for example, it's unlikely
that the vendors of products which do the bad thing would consent to
such a statement. and if you take out the language that says "this is bad"
then the vendors will cite the RFC as if it were a standard.
and given that NATs are already in blatent violation of the standards,
it's not clear why NAT vendors would adhere to standards for NATs.
nor is it clear how reasonable standards for NATs could say anything
other than "modification of IP addresses violates the IP standard;
you therefore MUST NOT do this".
Personally, I'd rather have the IETF issue verbiage saying "Do it this way",
than have 50 million content providers all implement it in subtly different
and broken ways.
not sure what content providers have to do with this -
if content providers harm their own content, it's not clear why IETF
should care - there are ample incentives for them to fix their own problems.
Keith