[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Proposed text for the concatenation
- To: "Mannie, Eric" <Eric.Mannie@ebone.com>
- Subject: Re: Proposed text for the concatenation
- From: Eric Gray <eric.gray@sandburst.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:03:33 -0400
- Cc: "'Fong, Man Wing'" <MFong@WhiteRockNetworks.com>,"'Bernstein, Greg'" <GregB@ciena.com>,'Bala Rajagopalan' <BRaja@tellium.com>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org,ip-optical@lists.bell-labs.com, "t1x1.5" <t1x15@t1.org>,q11/15 <tsg15q11@itu.int>
- Delivery-date: Tue, 22 May 2001 13:04:57 -0700
- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com
"Mannie, Eric" wrote:
> ...
>
> --- proposed new section:
>
> X. Relationship with SDH and SONET standards
>
> Some of the features described in this specification are not defined neither
> in ANSI T1.105 (1995 and 2000), nor in ITU-T G.707 (1996 and 2000).
'not', 'neither' and 'nor' - either say 'are defined neither in ... nor in ...'
or
say 'are not defined either in ... or in ...' As is, you are double negating
and
effectively saying these features ARE defined in BOTH places.
> However,
> these features are useful and implemented in many equipment's. All these
> features are optional but can be controlled using this specification.
>
> ...
>
--
Eric Gray