On Mon, 5 Mar 2018, Fernando Gont wrote:
Folks,
This rev is meant to address your feedback regarding opt 0x23
(draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo).
Please do let us know if your concerns have been addressed.
(re-)Read document in its entirety and this is what came to mind:
3.4.1.4, I've made this error (at least) once, can we have a link and
short explanation what a "jumbogram" is? Just so people (like me) don't
get them mixed up with jumbo frame? (I realise this is in 4.3.3, but
adding a link here might still help)
3.5. Can we add a "(yet)" as in "have not (yet) been assigned" ?
3.5.4 The second paragraph is really important, can we emphasise this a
bit more? Or even break it out into a separate item in the list?
3.5.5 What about adding a sentence that devices should have configuration
option to allow EHs based on codepoints so that older software can be made
to allow EHs that are not known to that software at the point of compile?
Also applies to 4.4.4
4.3.2.5 here it says "should not discard" and in other items it says
"should permit". Would help if this is done in the same way throughout the
document?
I just noticed that a lot of the paragraph headers contain the word
"Blocked". This is first mentioned in 3.4.1.4 and it's never mentioned
earlier in the document together with what "discarded", "filtered",
"rejected" means.
4.4.5 what does "enterprise" mean here? Perhaps another term can be used,
such as "very security conscious" or something like that?
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
OPSEC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
