Le 11 avr. 2010 à 21:59, Fred Baker a écrit :
Hi all, The document reflects to a good extent the consensus reached in Anaheim (thanks to James for all his work on this), but it can, and IMHO it should, be improved on the 2 following points: 1. A sentence of the introduction is in part self-contradictory. CURRENT SENTENCE: "The specific recommendations in this document are intended to promote optimal local-area network security while retaining full end-to-end transparency for users, and to highlight reasonable limitations on transparency where security considerations are deemed important." (Strictly speaking, if "full e2e transparency" is "retained", it shouldn't be limited, even in a "reasonable" way.) PROPOSAL: "The specific recommendations in this document specify for IPv6 a local-area network protection similar to that generally found behind IPv4 NATs. Limitations to full IPv6 end-to-end network transparency, unavoidable where this protection is supported, are minimized."2.In the summary of section 4, the introductory sentence seems to imply that the document recommends *in general* the specified level of protection, which is beyond the intent of the consensus.CURRENT SENTENCE: "This section collects all of the recommendations made in this document into a convenient list." PROPOSAL: "This section collects into a convenient list all recommendations made for CPEs that support the level of local-area network protection specified in this document."Regards,RD |