On Sep 19, 2017, at 00:17, Adam Roach <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > If you want to reduce this to analogies, your proposal is much closer to the situation we had in the IETF a couple of decades ago when it came to NATs: we preferred architecturally pristine approaches that shattered into useless, broken shards on contact with reality. Nice volley. Now, BOM pollution and NATs have in common that they are unclean hacks with lots of unpleasant consequences. But that’s where the analogy ends. NATs were invented to solve a real-world economic problem: The attempt by ISPs to create price differentiation by charging for the number of IP addresses provided. Nothing in hell could have stopped the powerful economic incentive to work around that attempt. BOM pollution maybe has the incentive of allowing one to drag out the transition towards UTF-8, but that has happened already, so what’s the point. I sincerely hope that the NAT history isn’t dragged out each time we need an apology for unclean hacks with lots of unpleasant consequences. Grüße, Carsten