Re: recommendation against publication of draft-cerpa-necp-02.txt

[Keith Moore]

> 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
misleading results.

Keith