Warren, [sorry for late reply] > -----Original Message----- > From: Warren Kumari [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 04 December 2013 18:16 > To: Michael Behringer (mbehring) > Cc: Warren Kumari; Dobbins, Roland; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Review of draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-05 [...] > I have read all the versions of this document and think that the tone has > greatly improved, but feel that section 2.5 (Summary) still has a bit too > much of the "this is a good idea" feel. Personally I think that the Summary > section doesn't really add anything to the document and should be > dropped.
So I've been told throughout school and uni that a document should have intro, body and summary; I'm feeling somewhat reluctant to drop a summary, it just seems wrong. :-) Let's see whether we can get one that "feels" right. What about: Using exclusively link-local addressing on infrastructure links has a number of advantages and disadvantages, which are both described in detail in this document. A network operator can use this document to evaluate whether using link-local addressing on infrastructure links is a good idea in the context of his/her network or not. This document makes no particular recommendation either in favour or against. I think this should be balanced, would you agree? Michael _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
