Hi Paul, You wrote:
>> I have done so in several messages, including this one (2010-03-11), >> which links to some earlier messages: >> >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06250.html > > Oh, as per private mail, I respect your demonstrable ability to process > information and grapple with detail. Just sometimes "less is more" when > it comes to communication. ;) > > No disrespect was intended. > > regards, In a field as complex and important as scalable routing, I think it is contradictory to expect someone to write briefly enough to fit in with one or more person's limited interests, limited time etc. while also expecting them to properly argue the case for their beliefs. I am writing as briefly as I can, while adequately addressing the many issues. I don't assume everyone has the time or interest to read this. Sometimes, when I try to state something briefly, there are misunderstandings, objections and requests for more details - such as your assumption I hadn't argued the case for the CEE/CES distinction. I frequently provide a "Short version" at the start, and refer to previous messages so I don't need to restate things at length. When I started the thread (msg06473) I referenced (msg06250) - but did not mention that this concerned why the CEE / CES distinction is meaningful and useful. I sometimes provide the full links and titles of previous messages, but I was trying to be brief! In the 4th message in this thread, you assumed I had never explained my arguments. I should add "see (msg06250)" every time I mention the CEE/CES distinction. - Robin _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
