Re: Reply 3 of 3 to Pekka Savola

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, George Jones wrote:
[ including L2 info in ACLs ]
> ps> I'm not 100% sure L2 info i sneeded,
> 
> Without this, it may be impossible to trace back DoS attacks.

I guess this is another (if applicable) case as well.  Obviously this 
is not necessary in POS interfaces ;-).. but that it should be 
supported in non-p-t-p media.

> ps> (same elsewhere as well: unify style)
> ps>
> ps>   Justification. This is important because it supports individual
> ps>       accountability See section 4.5.4.4 of [RFC2196].
> 
> Easier said than done (xml2rfc is a fine tool, but it lacks style
> sheets).
> 
> At the risk of making things a bit longer, but more readable (I
> think), I've redone the formatting for all reques as follows:

True. this is why some might have do this using <section> tags for 
Requirement/Examples/Warnings and setting the tocdepth so that those 
wouldn't be included in the ToC.

> ps> ==> I'd invent shorter "short names" for these references.
> 
> Actually, I didn't invent these.  They come from ?Marshall Rose's?
> bibxml database fed to xml2rfc.  Its convenient and would be work
> to change consistently with each update of the db.

What I was really saying is that there is a '<?rfc xxx=yes|no ?>' 
toggle which can be used whether those refs are shown as [I-D.foo] or 
[1].  I was asking whether using the "symbolic name" was intentional, 
as you typically just use the numbers. 

> You've (finally) been popped. Go ahead and push if you've got more
> (you mentiond you wrote up more comments on the plane).  You can
> see HTMLized diffs betwen (03|03bis) and 4-working @
> 
> http://www.port111.com/opsec/draft-jones-opsec-03-to-04-working.html
> http://www.port111.com/opsec/draft-jones-opsec-03bis-to-04-working.html

Will do..

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings