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

Greg Skinner <gds@best.com> Mon, 17 July 2000 21:50 UTC

Received: by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) id RAA01263 for ietf-outbound.10@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:50:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from shell5.ba.best.com (gds@shell5.ba.best.com [206.184.139.136]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA26426 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:40:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from gds@localhost) by shell5.ba.best.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/best.sh) id OAA12289; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 14:40:49 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 14:40:49 -0700
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Message-Id: <200007172140.OAA12289@shell5.ba.best.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Loop: ietf@ietf.org

Masataka Ohta wrote:

> If IETF makes it clear that AOL is not an ISP, it will commercially
> motivate AOL to be an ISP.

Why?  Certainly, they are aware that they are not an ISP by your
definition.  It hasn't changed their business practices.  Why would
an IETF RFC change their business practices?  The business practices
of AOL are determined, for the most part, by what Wall Street and
their customers think is important, not what the IETF thinks.  Most
of their customers are unlikely to read such an RFC anyway.

--gregbo