http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requirements-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
ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requirements-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 mo
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
At 05:23 PM 11/16/2004, James M. Polk wrote...
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requirements-00.txt
>
>I do not see why this ID should be limited to the Routing area...
Morals exist at layer 3, and are therefore related to Routing.
Ethics exist at layer 2
Ole,
At 03:03 PM 11/16/2004, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Indeed.
People polled after the election said they put Moral Values as the #1
priorty. I see no reason why the previous and next administration won't
make a morality section a requirement in all published docs.
We should be proactive and create a mo
At 06:44 PM 11/16/2004 -0500, Mike S wrote:
At 05:23 PM 11/16/2004, James M. Polk wrote...
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requirement
s-00.txt
>
>I do not see why this ID should be limited to the Routing area...
Morals exist at layer 3, and are therefore related to
At 03:57 PM 11/16/04 -0800, Bob Hinden wrote:
We should be proactive and create a morality area in the IETF. The
morality ADs can review and vote Discuss if the Morality Considerations
section in drafts being reviewed by the IESG is not adequate.
Do the Morality ADs get to wear funny clothes?
In
From: "Fred Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At 03:57 PM 11/16/04 -0800, Bob Hinden wrote:
We should be proactive and create a morality area in the IETF. The
morality ADs can review and vote Discuss if the Morality
Considerations section in drafts being reviewed by the IESG is not
adequate.
Do the Mo
On Nov 16, 2004, at 3:57 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
We should be proactive and create a morality area in the IETF. The
morality ADs can review and vote Discuss if the Morality
Considerations section in drafts being reviewed by the IESG is not
adequate.
I would volunteer for such a job, bearing in mi
At 06:39 PM 11/16/2004 -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
At 03:57 PM 11/16/04 -0800, Bob Hinden wrote:
We should be proactive and create a morality area in the IETF. The
morality ADs can review and vote Discuss if the Morality Considerations
section in drafts being reviewed by the IESG is not adequate.
D
On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 20:58 -0600, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> From: "Fred Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Do the Morality ADs get to wear funny clothes?
> >
> > Inquiring minds want to know...
>
> I would love to be on NomCom when they open the envelope and read the
> desired characteristics for
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:57:37 -0800
Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We should be proactive and create a morality area in the IETF. The
> morality ADs can review and vote Discuss if the Morality Considerations
> section in drafts being reviewed by the IESG is not adequate.
I nominate B
Hardly a moral model, I mean look at some of the stuff Bert engages in:
http://bert.secret-wg.org/Kisses/index.html
...and that's the censored stuff.
OK, OK, back to AdminRest or something equally sobering :-)
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Academi
At 08:15 PM 17/11/2004, Olaf M. Kolkman wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:57:37 -0800
Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We should be proactive and create a morality area in the IETF. The
> morality ADs can review and vote Discuss if the Morality Considerations
> section in drafts being reviewe
14 matches
Mail list logo
