>To John's point, short isn't actually good, because it's important to
>document the context--

No, really, short is essential.  I'm happy to add the context once we
have a concise statement of what the problem is.

> But we tried to keep the actual
>problem statement short and pithy; if you really think it's too long,
>perhaps you could suggest shorter wordings that still capture the actual

Ah.  See previous message for some examples.  In neither of the
documents can I tell whether dealing with the toxic waste names is
supposed to be in or out of scope.


DNSOP mailing list

Reply via email to