On 17.10.05 21:57 -0400, Chris Buechler wrote:
> - platform should be checkboxes, IMO. I can't answer that question
> in a way that wouldn't be misleading, as I have Soekris 4501, 4801,
> - on the questions where you can enter a number, if you have
> multiple boxes, I think it should be noted that you should use the
> median specification amongst your installations
> - on Yes/No questions, I'd imagine people will be allowed to skip
> questions, but we may want to make note of that or put in a field
Uhm... that was already there, and in bold type - but I've
highlighted it even more now.
> - on IPsec, I guess that feature wraps up NAT-T and other things,
> but I think we may want to re-word that option. Maybe something
> like "Enterprise-class IPsec support (dynamic IP, NAT-T, DPD, Xauth
> support, etc.)"
> one last concern, just making sure appropriate input validation is
> done (where it says check 3, you can only check 3 or less, in RAM
> require between 32 and 8000 or something, etc.) We can clean up
> data later, of course, but it would be best to keep the data as
> clean and reasonable as we can up front.
There's already been validation for the obvious (not more than 3
checked, a number must be entered where requested), but I've also
added some basic bounds checking to those number input fields now.
> well... I'd say go with no end date at first, then once we think we
> have sufficient replies, give it another week and send out another
> announcement with the newly-determined deadline.
Sounds like a good idea to me!
Any more comments, everyone? Otherwise the survey will probably go
live in a few hours.