On 3/19/10 11:09 PM, james woodyatt wrote:
Wish I could be at the meeting next week to make my points there, but if I was I would be asking for something along the lines of this:On Mar 19, 2010, at 12:34, Brian E Carpenter wrote:So I want to say: let's not add *anything*. Let's just push it out in a matter of weeks.I'm currently sitting on a couple of minor edits: + Cite RFC 4007 to clear up confusion about multicast group scope boundaries. + Fix some inconsistencies between cpe-simple-security and RFC 4890. I'm planning to post the -10 revision tonight, then start revising my slides for Monday morning. We shall see if there is a rough consensus for sending the -10 revision up the stack in the days following the meeting, or if further wrangling over it in the working group is in order.
Section 2.3, first paragraph: s/not forwarded into the/rate-limited or discarded before reaching the And a new sentence like this:Rate-limiting unsolicited inbound connections rather than rejecting them provides greater end-to-end transparency while still providing protection against address and port scanning attacks as well as overloading of slow links or devices within the home.
Thanks, - MarkPS. I have some other clarification suggestions and questions to ask about text I read while reviewing today. I'll wait for -10 before posting these.
-- james woodyatt<jhw@apple.com> member of technical staff, communications engineering