> 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.
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06835.html

No prob.


lisp mailing list

Reply via email to