RE: Comments on the comparison document

Hi Maureen,

I think that we should also add a subsection to the DNS section on the
differences between the DNS and RSERPOOL security models.  I'll volunteer to
do this.  Other comments related to the sections I wrote are below.  I do,
however, agree with the rest of your nits and non-nits.

John, if you'd like me to make the edits to the draft, let me know.  I
should have the cycles to do so.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> I have mostly nits which are optional.  Non-nits are first.
> 
> Non-nits:
> 

[snip]
    
> 
> 3.2.2 Technical Issues
> 
> Most of the extended features of ASAP [6] and ENRP [7] are not met by
>    a device employing L4 switching techniques.
> 
> The use of the word "extended" has potential for confusion.  They
> might think that ASAP and ENRP have a set of extensions that L4
> switches don't support.  In fact, ASAP and ENRP don't have any
> extensions defined right now.  I have two suggestions: 1) delete the
> word extended and 2) add to the end of the sentence (see comparison
> table in section 5) OR you could list some of the requirements that
> L4 switches don't meet.      
> 

I think that deleting the word and referncing the table is the way to go.  I
was trying to say that only a subset of the ASAP and ENRP features could be
met by L4 switching.  Your wording is better.

> 
> 3.1 Introduction
> 
> Since these technologies
>    are highly proprietary, it is difficult to detail these techniques
>    in a thorough manner.
> 
> change to (* to help you find the word(s) to change):
> 
> Since these technologies
>    are highly proprietary, it is difficult to *discuss* these
>    techniques in a thorough manner.
> 

[snip]

Agreed.

[snip]

> 
> I think this is it.  Thanks.
> 
> -- maureen
> 

Aron