--- Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
