> Thanks for your work on this draft. I think the draft would read better
> if the content of the Abstract is repeated in the introduction. If you
> read just the introduction, it is not clear what this draft is about, the
> abstract text is needed to have an understanding.
Thanks Kathleen for your review. We’ll repeat the Abstract as the first
paragraph of the Introducation section.
> In the introduction, I'm not sure what this means:
> Packets that arrive at
> the ITR or PITR are typically not modified, which means no protection
> or privacy of the data is added.
> Do you mean modified as in 'not encrypted' or something else? It would
> be easier to read if what you meant was clearly stated.
I meant “not encrypted”. Will clarify.
> It's followed by this sentence:
> If the source host encrypts the
> data stream then the encapsulated packets can be encrypted but would
> be redundant.
> But the introduction doesn't clearly say what this would be redundant to.
> Can you clarify this text too?
All the statement means is the packet would be encrypted twice. I’ll make the
point ore clear.
> Thanks for addressing the SecDir review.
lisp mailing list