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

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.

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-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
> 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