Re: [idn] Future of the requirements document

[Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>]

(my last posting on this thread.)

At 03:56 PM 12/15/2001 -0500, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote:
>I don't need, or expect, a ground swell. This isn't a popularity contest.

Any one person may (and should) post a notice whenever they discover that a 
technical specification is fatally flawed.  That is, a claim that a 
technical solution "will not work" is may be posted at any point in the 
process, and it does not matter whether there is one person or many people 
posting that view.

On the other hand, matters involving more flexibility than outright failure 
ARE really a popularity contest.  That is what Rough Consensus is about.

We do not use the term "popularity" because it is vulgar and demeaning, but 
ultimately, it is a practical view of the way IETF choice is made.

Of course, we hope and expect that rough consensus popularity is due to 
practical superiority of a technical idea, rather than personal or business 
factors.  Ultimately, however, we have no control over people's criteria.


>         are requirements a technical necessity?

Yes, but requirements *documents* are not.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464