Update reference and text of 111 after ML discussion

bip-0111.mediawiki

@@ -42,8 +42,8 @@ the NODE_BLOOM bit set, however clients which require bloom filtered
 connections should avoid making this assumption.
 
 NODE_BLOOM is distinct from NODE_NETWORK, and it is legal to advertise
-NODE_BLOOM but not NODE_NETWORK (eg for nodes running in pruned mode
-which, nonetheless, provide filtered access to the data which they do have).
+NODE_BLOOM but not NODE_NETWORK (though there is little reason to do
+so now, some proposals may make this more useful in the future)
 
 If a node does not support bloom filters but receives a "filterload",
 "filteradd", or "filterclear" message from a peer the node should
@@ -86,6 +86,7 @@ References
 ==========
 
 [1] http://eprint.iacr.org/2014/763
-[2] ???? is one example where the issues were found, though others
+[2] http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2013-July/003044.html
+is one example where the issues were found, though others
 independently discovered issues as well. Sample DoS exploit code
 available at https://github.com/petertodd/bloom-io-attack.