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

[Randy Bush <[e-mail]>]

> Joking aside, I agree with Keith Moore, some things are totally
> unacceptable and this falls into that category.

so we try to stay somewhere within the solar system, let's review what
"this" is.  it was a discussion with masataka and jon about defining classes
of providers.

    From: Randy Bush <[e-mail]>
    To: Masataka Ohta <[e-mail]>
    Cc: Jon Crowcroft <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
    Subject: Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt
    Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 06:35:47 -0700

    >> 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.

masataka was saying that he could classify providers given a rather fixed
model.  i was saying that the world changes and that providers will find
new business models and bend masataka's rigid classification.

and then keith came out of left field without bothering to actually read
the thread and went off on his usual jihad against whatever perfidy drives
him to wild accusations and libel this week, usually nats, proxies, and
whatever.  booooring.

but yes, likely some things in this world are not acceptable to some
segment of the population.  so don't accept them.  but life goes on and
things change.

randy