Hi Murray,
At 16:45 19-04-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Hi SM, thanks for the review!
It took 74 minutes, including distractions. :-)
You're right about UDP. I'd prefer to leave TCP in, however.
Ok.
I think these are semantically the same. We're still left with the
question, "When would you not?" The answer is "When you don't have
it," I suppose. I'll reword accordingly.
I used RECOMMENDED to be in line with RFC 6302. I could not come up
with suggested text for that "SHOULD" within the deadline.
There's some in the next version, based on yours and other feedback. :-)
I'll do a follow-up if the draft goes to Last Call. BTW, you don't
need an update in the Abstract ( -02).
I haven't seen specific section call-outs done in an updating
document before, only the "Updates" stuff on the title page. Is
this necessary?
No, as I classified it under nits. This document may be folded in
the RFCs it updates at some point. It's easier if it inherits the
requirements in those documents. If I am implementing the
specifications, it is easier to read and understand. From an IETF
perspective, you don't have to worry about all that.
BTW, I didn't get into the RFC 6302 angle altogether. Section 13.3
of RFC 6269 discusses about spam in the context of IP address
sharing. The issues around IP address sharing are due to the
deployment of CGNs.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
