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

[John C Klensin <klensin+idn@jck.com>]

--On Friday, March 02, 2001 10:20 AM -0500 "Hollenbeck, Scott"
<shollenbeck@verisign.com> wrote:

> 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?

My guess is that the WG is going to need to do some serious
backing up and revising of the "requirements" part, if for no
reason than that it lists some things as "MUST"-level
requirements that currently-proposed solutions don't meet.  Some
of us are likely to argue that those requirements should stand in
the document and that text should be added explaining why the WG
chose to give up on them (rather than just taking a "never mind"
attitude and quietly removing or downgrading them).  Whether that
view prevails or not, the debate and the fussing with the text
won't get the document finished quickly.

I deduce from the WG Last Call on the document that the co-chairs
are anxious to get the thing wrapped up and out.  I don't believe
that it would be wise (or proper) to publish it while some of its
provisions are controversial: If it contains strong-requirement
provisions that are not met by proposals under active
consideration, they are controversial, whether the WG wants to
explicitly face that or not.

By contrast, the context and background material probably is not
controversial.  So it makes sense to split it off (a fairly
trivial job, I think) and get it, at least, published and out of
the WG's queue.

     john