On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Perhaps we could use the term "functional requirements", which is used >> quite often by software architects > > Proposed rewording: > > This implies that a solution must continue to support > the functions in today's routing subsystem that are actually used. >
+1 Since there has been a discussions between capability and functionality you might want to consider to replace "capability" in sections 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 with "functional requirement". TE, multi-homing and mobility are real requirements that we aren't allowed to drop. Patrick _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
