Re: Informational RFC to be: draft-irtf-nsrg-report-10.txt

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <E1A48Ak-000PTM-VI@ran.psg.com>, Randy Bush writes:
>> forestalling the iesg-secretary query....
>> I think this is best reviewed for conflicts in the Internet area.
>> Second best might be Routing.
>
>i don't have the stomach for reading this now, and i received an
>extra writing assignment this noon.  but my memory, as a member
>of the nsrg, is that this was supposed to be a report of some
>meetings and discussions of an irtf research group.  i.e., it is
>kind of like minutes, and not ours to say what they had a right
>to think or not.

Speaking as chair of the group, I'd say that you're right.  It's 
certainly within scope for someone to look at it to see if it 
represents itself otherwise.
>
>note that this may be a case of my playing voltaire [0]: "I
>disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your
>right to say it."
>
>randy
>
>--
>
>[0] - note that this is attributed to Voltaire, but is actually
>      believed to be derived from his work and pseudo-quoted by
>      tallentyre.  how is that for a pedantry for the day?
>
Quite pedantic indeed.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb