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

["James Seng/Personal" <James@Seng.cc>]

John,

1. Requirements I-D according to our milestone should be Last Call in
Aug 2000. We are now Mar 2001 and we have not receive any major request
for changes in wordings in it for many months. So the reason the
"co-chairs are anxious to get the thing wrapped up and out" is fairly
obvious.

2. If we can't nail down Requirements, it would be fairly difficult for
us to move forward with the next step, ie, comparison and protocol.
Neither of which is valid if we don't have any assumption to build upon.
(btw, according to Milestone, we should be doing Last Call on comparison
on Jan 2001).

3. If you have any specific request to downgrade MUST to SHOULD, or any
other changes in wordings for requirements, please send them in now.

4. Given that we keep slipping some of the schedule these few months, it
reflects either (a) poor scheduling of milestones when the WG is formed
or (b) poor management of the WG chair. I shall left it to the WG to
decide which is the reasons but moving forward, I proposed we readjust
the Goals and Milestone section of the Charter to accurately reflect
what we all think where we stand on now.

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "John C Klensin" <klensin+idn@jck.com>
To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Cc: <idn@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 2:11 AM
Subject: RE: [idn] Presentation suggestion about "requirements" doc


> --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
>
>
>
>