[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 06:10:09 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian said:
> The debate is dominated by the parties of the first part unfortunately (and
> add professors of law to this already toxic mix)
So what you're saying is that the debate is in total violation of
RFC1925, section 4? :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 848 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140725/27e978cf/attachment.pgp>
- References:
- Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
- From: pauldotwall at gmail.com (Paul WALL)
- Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
- From: william.allen.simpson at gmail.com (William Allen Simpson)
- Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
- From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
- Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
- From: ops.lists at gmail.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
- Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
- From: brunner at nic-naa.net (Eric Brunner-Williams)
- Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
- From: ops.lists at gmail.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian)