-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I agree with Melinda. I would very much like to be able to let the desk clerk at the hotel know that I won't be paying for their "Internet" service, because it wasn't RFCxxxx compliant. (I now wish that someone did get the trademark on that word, and would deny it to locations that offer only NATwork service) That's the only value I see in this situation. For the the vendors that have a clue, and will likely be involved in this process, they are likely already compliant. For those that aren't compliant, they won't be there. That's tough for them. - -- ] "Elmo went to the wrong fundraiser" - The Simpson | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON |net architect[ ] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[ ] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Finger me for keys iQCVAwUBQU99x4qHRg3pndX9AQEcZwQA4i29k5yetBQw4We1w6MUPxxrHWqZyfey QQ3Dz8KA5ESIjIyxV1q8BEXCGjHWQDFdyu4aN/aztwaoYNIiEnf6WCCx6/tNkQr8 OlxCTdE/0gZtEgQ1vkY06JM8Tjy4HtVhwx+hJp8RspuATmV+3j605h4Y5oriZNgk Xz3QlHLbCMk= =2cJx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf