Much earlier, RJ Atkinson wrote: >> <http://www.postel.org/ien/pdf/ien001.pdf>
Earlier, Tony Li wrote: > Unfortunately, this particular PDF file doesn't seem to render > properly on my system (MacOSX 10.6.4, Preview.app). I was able > to render it using Adobe Reader. Reference added. Good point. There seems to be a bug/limitation/issue in some PDF readers that prevents them from displaying all pages of the PDF file of IEN-1 at the URL quoted above. As far as I know, IEN-1 is only available in PDF, apparently because of some hand-drawn figures in the document. So if others have run into the issue tli describes, they might want to try the (no cost) Adobe PDF Reader application instead. >> 3.10 Aside: >> Would it be OK if we said "capabilities" instead of "functionality" ? > > I actually think that there's an important distinction here: > there are many capabilities of the routing system today that > are not in active use, such as deaggregation. I don't think > that an architecture needs to support all capabilities, > as it means that we must propagate our overhead as well. Interesting. Many people, including me, would say that "capabilities" has the same meaning as "functionality". My sense always has been that the two words differed mainly in that "functionality" is a jargon non-word, while "capabilities" is actually in the dictionary. Apparently, the document intends some different meaning for "functionality". I'm not at all sure what that might be. If a native reader of English is unsure, then some folks who aren't native readers of English are very likely to be confused. Please rephrase this part of the text in some way that (a) eliminates the word "functionality" and (b) makes the intended meaning clear and unambiguous. Thanks, Ran _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
