On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Michael Behringer (mbehring) < [email protected]> wrote:
> 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? > Sorry for the large delay in responding -- vacations and similar made this scroll off the bottom of the mailbox / todo pile... Yup, that covers it well enough for me... would be even better if y'all spelt 'favor' correctly <winks and runs away> W > > Michael > > >
_______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
