> How about if I say "traffic amplification over a remote path" instead > of "packet amplification"?
wfm. > > Seems like a sentence or two describing the exploitation itself would > > be good. Not a lot of detail, but more than just "it can be > > exploited". (Later, I see that you include such text in the security > > considerations section. I think it should be moved to (or included in) > > the beginning of the document. > Would a forward reference to the Security Considerations section be a > reasonable compromise? IMO, no. The document should flow smoothly to the reader. This belongs up front, not at the end. IMO. > >> 8.1. Normative References > > > > > >> [RFC4294] Loughney, J., "IPv6 Node Requirements", RFC 4294, > >> April 2006. > > > > Shouldn't this reference be informative? > The document states that it update RFC4294 in section 1, so I > presumed that reference needed to be normative. Ah, right. OK. Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
