[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [bmwg] Comments on draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term-04.txt
Title: Re: [bmwg] Comments on draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term-04.txt
On 7/16/08 2:46 PM, "Al Morton" <acmorton at att.com> wrote:Al Morton
At 11:33 AM 7/16/2008, Rajiv Papneja wrote:
> Abstract:
> “The performance benchmarks are measured at the IP-Layer, so avoid
> dependence on specific sub-IP protection mechanisms.” -- Consider
> rewording “… IP-Layer, so avoid” to something like “… IP-layer,
> avoiding…” or “… IP-layer and avoid …”
Historically, this term was used to encompass other protection mechanisms stated in the abstract and we were asked to stick with sub-IP term at least in the terminology document. If the group would like to change it for clarity, we would be happy to reword as suggested – Al, your comment is appreciated here!
Bill is not suggesting changing the term "sub-IP", if I understand
his comment. He's just editing the text around the term "IP-layer"
rp> Yes, you are correct. I believe Bill is trying to convey to reword the term “avoid” following IP-layer in the abstract. Thanks for further clarifying it.
Al
_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg