I don't find current 2.6 confusing, so the path of least effort would be to leave it as-is. (But I'm not opposed to some editing if someone is willing to propose text.) Best regards, Pasi
> -----Original Message----- > From: ipsec-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of ext Paul Hoffman > Sent: 20 January, 2010 23:02 > To: IPsecme WG > Subject: [IPsec] Issue #148: Historical cookie discussion > > In 2.6, first paragraph: the historical discussion going back to the > previous century is very confusing to a newcomer: instead of saying > what a cookie is, we tell a story. I suggest to remove this discussion > or move it to the end of the section. > > Can we separate the cookie discussion into its own subsection? For two > reasons: it is an implementation hint, rather than a specification (as > opposed to the normative text on SPIs earlier in 2.6); and it is not > very important, given the prevalence of DDos. > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --VPN Consortium > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > IPsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
