This issue claims that use case #10 is logically invalid. In my opinion, it is true that use case #10 (as written) is self-referential and non-sensical.
My proposed resolution is that use case #10 should be removed, unless someone can explain what it was meant to say... Thoughts? Margaret _______________________________________________ mif mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
