Pekka Savola wrote:
The actual recommendations run to 7 pages and the example script (Appendix B) is about the same length - given the two cases and the number of different messages I don't think you can get much more concise if you want a bit of reasoning and a decent layout.On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:And do we really need 34 pages just to say "if you're so paranoid that you want to filter ICMPv6, at least have the sense to let these ones through"?We live in an age of information overload, conciseness is a virtue!While I agree that some parts of the doc could possibly be a bit shorter, I still think the document is about the right length. The main meat is about 15 pages. The question at this point is, I guess, whether all the appendices are useful enough. At least the text in the main body is required when a reader starts to think "but, I really want to block [foo]. Why shouldn't I just go ahead and do so?"
Appendix A provides the detailed analysis: discarding this would be possible, but the result is people have to reinvent the logic sometime in the future.
I can't see a very simple way to add a *brief* conclusion to the abstract/intro. What I have done is to add a paragraph pointing directly to the recommendations for those who think they know about (or don't care about) ICMPv6 and what security attacks might eventuate.That said, maybe it wouldn't hurt to put some conclusions to the abstract, introduction, a new section or call them out more explicitly from the existing text.
/Elwyn