Re: [bmwg] Comments on draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term-04.txt

[Al Morton <acmorton at att.com>]

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"

Al





_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg