Re: [idn] Future of the requirements document

[Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

Eric,

On Sat, 15 Dec 2001, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote:

> Dave,
>
> I don't need, or expect, a ground swell. This isn't a popularity contest.
>
> There are some questions:
>
> 	are requirements a technical necessity?
>
> 	is the process of transition from a WG with a document under the
> 	change control of the WG, to a WG without that document, within
> 	what we know of as the IETF's process?
>
> In my opinion, absence of requirements is a technical error.

the absence of requirements is not a technical error. the requirements are
out of sync with reality, and as I said at the meeting in SLC,

   Its too late to write the recipie when the cake is nearly fished
   baking.

> In my opinion, the transition attempted is a process error.

hmmm, i believe as I feel others do too, that its not a process error, but
reasonable to drop the requirments as we are nearly done with a solution
and the requirements are out of touch with reality. Writing the
requirements as a port-mortum excercise we shouldn't call them
requirements and IMHO, we don't need to bring them into sync just to get
the consensus documents pushed to the IESG.

-rick