[e2e] Internet Draft and survey on P2P in the presence of NAT

[David P. Reed]

At 04:45 PM 4/9/2003 -0400, Melinda Shore wrote:
>UPnP is just one implementation of midcom, albeit more
>marketable.

What IETF Standard RFC describes UPnP?

If there is none, UPnP is NOT an "implementation of midcom" or "an 
implementation of anything" as any lawyer or human would understand the 
term "implementation of".

Maybe you meant: UPnP is kinda sorta kinda sorta like, well, at least one 
part of it is kinda like midcom as some people and companies would have it 
and other parts of it relate to how USB defines device categories for 
personal computer peripherals, and other parts of relate to ...

Of course, NAT technology is not anything like a standard either, even 
though the vendors claim that it is because a random RFC defined it.   If 
it were a standard, the STUN RFC would not have to invent terminologies 
like "full cone" and "full, modified controlled cones with certain 
exceptions known only to the manufacturer".

Whatever happened to "rough consensus and working code"?   Instead it is 
"whatever random vendors feel like doing, good or bad, we'll slap some RFC 
words on it and bless yet another proprietary and poorly thought out kludge 
that can't be implemented because the vendor won't share the full specs 
with us. It's easier than consensus..."