RE: [idn] Presentation suggestion about "requirements" doc

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

John,

What advantage is gained by moving the context and background information
into a separate document that might be less controversial than the
requirements?  Conversely, what is lost by keeping the document as-is?

<Scott/>

-----Original Message-----
From: John C Klensin [mailto:klensin+idn@jck.com]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 4:13 AM
To: idn@ops.ietf.org
Subject: [idn] Presentation suggestion about "requirements" doc


Hi.

I've been working on some more extensive comments to the WG
(coming soon) that have required making several more passes
through the Requirements document.   Having done so, I'd like to
make a suggestion about the format of document itself.

[snip]

So, regardless of what we do about the substantive content of
this document, I suggest splitting it into two separate pieces,
with the current section 1 becoming, e.g., "Internationalized
[Access to] Domain Names: Context and Background", and leaving
only sections 2 and 3 as the "requirement" document.

This should permit us to tie up the first new doc almost
immediately -- the statements there are matters of fact and
should not be controversial -- while I suggest that the other
material will need to go another round (if only to
justify/rationalize the "requirements" proposals before the WG
don't meet).

     john