PILC ASYM: Wording of PEP comparison.

[Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>]

I am editing what we hope to be the last rev of

draft-ietf-pilc-asym-05.txt

prior to a PILC working group last call. The new text of one
section attempts to clarify the realtionship of the ASYM
draft to the PEP RFC previosuly issued.  Although there is
broad consensus on the roles of these two documents, the
previous wording in the asym draft received some criticsm.

Gorry Fairhurst

The replacement text below is offered for comment:

------

[RFC3135] describes a class of network device that provides more than
forwarding of packets, and which is known as a Protocol Enhancing Proxy
(PEP). A large spectrum of PEP devices exist, ranging from simple devices
(e.g. ACK filtering) to more sophisticated devices (e.g. that split a TCP
connection into two separate parts). The techniques described in section 6
of this document belong to the simpler type, and do not inspect/modify any
TCP or UDP payload data. They also do not modify port numbers or link
addresses.  Many of the risks associated with more complex PEPs do not
exist for these schemes. Further information about the operation and the
risks associated with using PEPs are described in [RFC3135].

-----

please tsend comments to:

[e-mail]
[e-mail]