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

Looks good to me. --Jari

Tero Kivinen wrote:

>[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.
>  
>