Re: Reply 3 of 3 to Pekka Savola

[George Jones <gmj@pobox.com>]

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Pekka Savola wrote:

> 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.

Let me know what changes (if any) you'd like to the warnings or
justification.

> > 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.

Hmm.  Fine idea.  If I have to touch everything again I may do this.

>
> > 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.

That was an artifact of my use/experimentation with xml2rfc.  I had
not given it much thought.  I got rid of the sym refs and use numbers
now.  You're right.  It looks better.

Thanks,
---George