RE: draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requirements-00.txt

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@cisco.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@ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.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@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf