RE: RE: docsIfCmtsModulationTable and StorageType TC ?

Given that Bert wrote:
> What we want is that read-write and/or read-create objects DO 
> explain what the persistency requirements/expectations are. 
> One way to do that (most flexible I think) is to use a 
> StorageType object in a table. Another way to do it, is to 
> include in the Table or Entry DESCRIPTION clause a statement 
> about the expected behaviour w.r.t. persistency.
and 
> So it is not a MUST HAVE storageType object. It is a MUST 
> EXPLAIN the expected behaviour w.r.t. persistency.

and that both Minnie & Andy have commented that adding some explanatory text is ok, I'd like to close on the direction we select: do we have wg consensus to add text to the relevant & existing table/entry description instead of adding storagetype objects?

If we agree that this is a good compromise at this point, we have to agree on the proposed text. Comments?
Jean-François