On 5/15/2013 10:15 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On May 15, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Joe Touch <touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu> wrote:
I'm impressed that you have such a specific interpretation that this
criteria refers to the entire document, even when it talks about the
"feature of a protocol".
"The motivation for a feature of a protocol is not clear enough."
What's ambiguous or subject to interpretation about that? The commentary
exactly echoes what I said. This does not mean that all lacks of clarity
are not DISCUSS criteria: only that a lack of clarity with respect to
motivation is not.
And yet that is the precise issue of your pending DISCUSS on my current
document.
You don't agree that the motivation for the difference between using
16-bit vs. 32-bit ExIDs is sufficient, even though that is already
discussed in the document.
Joe