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

[Masataka Ohta]

Robert;

> WAP and i-mode are *very* different.

FTP and SMTP are *very* different, because SMTP is a lot easier to
pass application/transport gateways.

However, the question of whether it is IP or not is enough to dismiss
iMODE and WAP.

The battle has been and still is fought between the end to end
Internet and intelligent telephone network.

NAT was merely an interim solution for telephone network people
until they are ready with non-IP protocols of iMODE or WAP.

Now, the option is between the stupid Internet with global IP
connectivity and the telephony based intelligent non-IP network
with a lot of application/transport gateways.

There is no ecological niche for intelligent IP network with
a lot of application/transport gateways (NAT), any more.

> i-mode uses native 
> http servers with some relatively transparent html 
> extensions for handsets (such as <a AccessKey="1" href="...). 

For IP community, it means that iMODE is worse than WAP.

For IP community, SMTP is worse than FTP, because SMTP is more
application/transport gateway friendly than FTP.

It is regrettable that some IETF WGs have damaged the Internet trying
to make application/transport layer protocols unnecessarily complex
to be NAT and/or non-IP protocol friendly.

                                                        Masataka Ohta