Yes, I agree. I'll rewrite the text to remove acronyms and make the style match the rest of the document.
Thanks, Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Paul Hoffman > Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 5:48 AM > To: IPsecme WG > Subject: Re: [IPsec] [ipsecme] #212: Section 2.2 should be more > detailed. > > On Mar 21, 2012, at 2:29 AM, Stephen Hanna wrote: > > > In a simple use case we want hub and spoke topology for say > > the DC and the branches. This would also be true of ATM's > > connecting to their DC. > > > > However for scalability reasons we would not want all traffic > > to go through the hub. In the ATM example we could want VoIP > > session to bypass the DC and have a direct connectivity between > > themselves. There are multiple other uses cases for the same. > > These new sessions however are temporary, when compared to > > permanent branch to hub connections. > > > Neither ATM nor DC are defined in the current document. It would be > better not to introduce new acronyms for a single use case. > > --Paul Hoffman > > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
