Hi Tony, You wrote:
> |I disagree with your apparent view that the 3.1 taxonomy is adequate > |as it stands: > > Then you mistake my intent completely. The taxonomy in 3.1 is inadequate > and not particularly helpful and not really worth further refinement. It's > included mostly out of completeness. But the current text gives no indication that this 3.1 taxonomy is inadequate. I don't see the value in "completeness" if it means including every possible taxonomy, including those which are inadequate. I suggest that if you don't want to improve it, that you either clearly state it is incomplete or remove it. My first preference is for improving it and my second is for removing it. - Robin _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
