On 3 Oct 2007, at 14:13, Marc Blanchet wrote:
I understand your comment. However, the issues you are raising (as well as others) related to 6to4 are already in the 6to4 security RFC (RFC3964), which is already referenced in the 6to4 paragraph. Therefore, I would suggest not to add any additional text in order to not repeat what is already throughly discussed in RFC3964.
I understand your response, and have some sympathy with your point of view.
I see two possible goals here: "communication" and "documentation". I'm not sure whether both are intended goals of the document being drafted. I think
they should be.Repetition is a nuisance in documentation, as it involves parallel maintenance. OTOH, appropriate repetition is useful in communication, as it helps underline
the message.My sense of the purpose of this document is that its readers ought to be adequately or even compellingly guided towards doing "the right thing". What prompted me to comment as I did was that, in reading it, I didn't quite find
the kind of guidance I was looking for.I'll read it again a couple of times, and consider whether I was simply in
unreceptive form whenever I read it before. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly University College Dublin IT Services PGP key ID: AE995ED9 (see www.pgp.net) Fingerprint: 23DC C6DE 8874 2432 2BE0 3905 7987 E48D AE99 5ED9
Attachment:
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part