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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
