If I understand it correctly, you're suggesting formalizing a way to make parts of the (host-specific) port canonically part of the network-wide address, no?

This still sounds like a very bad mixing of layers, even if done in a perfectly standardized and uniform way.

> It is always a mystery how people just randomly misinterpret what I write.

If this is intended literally and not as a general complaint: My main problem of understanding your suggestion is that I don't know what you mean by "IP+NAT address". NAT is a translation scheme, not an address.

Maybe it would be clearer if you could provide an example?