Ole Jacobsen <> wrote:
Indeed.
People polled after the election said they put Moral Values as the
#1
priorty.
Just one question: when did minding your own business cease to be a
"moral value"?
I see no reason why the previous and next administration
won't make a morality section a requirement in all published
docs.
The immorality of NATs for example...
Is it April already?
What did I miss?
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Academic
Research and Technology Initiatives, Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972 GSM: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: ole(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, James M. Polk wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requir
em
ents-00.txt
I do not see why this ID should be limited to the Routing area...
The Application of General Internet specifications should
consider
the Operations and Management of the Security surrounding
Transport
of morality considerations, even if in a Sub-IP moral zone.
nuff said?
cheers,
James
*******************
Truth is not to be argued... it is to be
presented
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Hope this helps,
~gwz
Why is it that most of the world's problems can't be solved by
simply
listening to John Coltrane? -- Henry Gabriel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf