nanog mailing list archives
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 21:02:08 -0400
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? :)
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity Paul WALL (Jul 22)
- Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity Michael Thomas (Jul 22)
- Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity William Allen Simpson (Jul 25)
- Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity Joly MacFie (Jul 25)
- Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jul 25)
- Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity Eric Brunner-Williams (Jul 25)
- Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jul 25)
- Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 25)
- Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jul 25)
- Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity Joly MacFie (Jul 25)
- Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity Matthew Petach (Jul 26)
- Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity Joly MacFie (Jul 27)
- Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity Richard Bennett (Jul 27)
- Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity Joly MacFie (Jul 27)
- Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity Richard Bennett (Jul 27)
- Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity Bill Woodcock (Jul 27)
- Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity Miles Fidelman (Jul 27)
- Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity Bill Woodcock (Jul 27)