RE: Review of RDFTM Survey

* Natasha
|
| So, maybe it is just the matter of wording (the current wording gives 
| an impression that there is more under the hood than you present, which 
| is not the case) and level of detail then. What you have there now is 
| rather terse.

Yes, I think it is mostly the wording. The problem seems to have been
inherited from the original document: Garshol gives the impression
that his analysis does not cover a bunch of issues, and then promptly
proceeds to cover them. We didn't catch this first time around and
this led to ambiguity in the wording.

Steve