Hi Ron The text that I suggested was meant for the introduction section, not as a definition of the term.
Albert On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Ronald Bonica <[email protected]> wrote: > Dino, > > Exactly! The Intro doc needs text that is a) easy to parse and b) technically > correct. This will certainly be more coarse that the definition in 6830, but > probably a little more verbose than what we have already proposed. > > Ron > > > >> >> Let's have descriptions where they are needed and formal definitions in the >> specs that were already published. And we should have the intro document >> make the descriptions more coarser than the technical definitions in the >> specs. Agree? >> >> Dino > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
