Re: Issue 59 (was: protocol draft status and moving forward)

[email protected] writes:
> Tero Kivinen wrote:
> 
> > Yes. People WILL misunderstand any text you put there.
> > 
> > If you do not want to add the text twice, then add the picture, not
> > the text. Text is hard to parse when you are trying to implement
> > things, and then you end up interpreting every hidden meaning before
> > each word used.
> 
> Ok, how about this?

That is fine. Even the picture (formula) I used would have been
sufficient, but this is even better... 

> > > Is mentioning IPv6 some more helpful for the reader..?
> > 
> > Yes. I think it should be repeated also in the security considerations
> > section, just to tell where this protection can be used. 
> 
> Ok, I copied the "This feature is mainly intended for IPv6 and 
> site-to-site VPN cases, where the administrators may know
> beforehand that NATs are not present." from 3.9 here.

Good.
-- 
[email protected]