Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt

> > I would go further - first to define by exclusion, secondly to define
> > a new class of providers (according tro common uisage) so that
> > discussion can proceed 
> My intention is to provide a semi permanent definition as an Informational
> RFC.
>
> It is important to make the definition protected by bogus opinions
> of various bodies including IETF.
of course you will exuse the providers if we continue to be perverse and
find new business models.

randy