Hi Stephen,
> On 22 Oct 2015, at 14:46, Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> wrote: > [snip] > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > - section 3: "proven by several studies" without references is > bad - we don't want blatent assertion in RFCs so please add > some references. That could be done via forward pointers to > later in the document or just by adding the refs here as well > and explaining them more later. Or else delete the sentence as > being redundant. > You are right. References are already in the document but in the sentence you are citing we need to either cite them again of put a forward reference. I am more prone to the second solution, a forward reference. Should be simpler. > - section 3, para starting "Results indicate...": Which > results? I can't tell from how it's written. There is missing reference there. [CDLC] is the one that needs to be added. Thanks. > > - section 4: ConteXtream needs a reference as does the tier-1 > operator (even if that has to be "private communication"at > least I'd know to go ask the authors if I care. > I will check with ConteXtream about adding the references you are asking. > - I think you could note that as a map-and-encap scheme LISP > also offers the potential for encryption of traffic between > xTRs and reference the relevant lisp-crypto draft. That could > go where you add a mention of rfc 7258 if you do add that. > (In response to I think Spencer's comment.) > Excellent idea. I will added a reference to that document and adjust the text accordingly. > - As with Kathleen, I think the secdir review deserves a > substantive response. Please give it one. > I really confused here! We did provide substantial answer. More specifically for the secdir… all my emails are awaiting moderator decision because I am not a member. > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
