> 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. Thanks, Dino _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
