Hi Ran, >>> 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.
Quick searches of three different dictionaries (webster.com, dictionary.com, Apple's dictionary widget) show that functionality is well defined. > 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. I'm happy to try to clarify, but I think that your restriction is onerous. We have one language to work with here, and it's bad enough that it's an imprecise natural language. To have to restrict ourselves to the intersection of everyone's vocabulary and not the union is going to leave us writing for Dr. Seuss. Regards, Tony _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
