Re: [idn] Future of the requirements document

["Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>]

Erik Nordmark wrote:

> I didn't say that the discussion about IHN vs. IDN syntactic
> restrictions are unimportant.

Perhaps it would be best to table this aspect of the discussion until the
minutes from the meeting are posted, so that quotes other than those found
in trade press articles can be analyzed. "Final touches" doesn't sound
like there is much room for further analysis.

> > As to whether or not a requirements document is necessary, note that
> > several modifications were suggested which would have made it
> > relevant, the suggestions were ignored, and then the document was
> > shelved by an external committee.
> 
> Not an external committee but the ADs for the working group.
> I think the ADs are allowed to talk to people to get advise, which
> is what happened in this case. And we're listening to the WG comments
> on the suggestion to drop the requirements document.

My comment for consideration is as follows: if the critics are willing to
sink time and energy into making the guiding document relevant, they
should be allowed to do so. Give them plenty of rope to hang themselves,
as it were. Of course, if quotes like "Our basic architecture is done" are
accurate, then there is no point in it.

Somebody please post the minutes.

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/