RE: TE Requirements Draft - ELSP

["Joel M. Halpern" <joel@stevecrocker.com>]

I think this captures my concern very nicely.
Most everything is "a slight addition ...".
In producing engineering products, avoiding the big unnecessary features is 
easy.  It is avoiding being nibbled to death by ducks (tiny incremental 
features) that is hard.  In defining standards this is actually an even 
larger problem because it is so easy to define just another little feature.
Yes, we have mechanisms to remove them later.  But it is better not to put 
in the features in the first place.
So, what I am asking for is not "what does this feature do?"  I understand 
what it does.  What I still don't understand is what problem it 
solves.  Label utlization?  Recovery time?  (Bias:  I happen to think that 
those two goals are not worth the added complexity.  But that would be up 
to the WG, not me.)

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 11:09 AM 11/21/01 +0100, Roberto Mameli (ERI) wrote:
>So, only a slight addition to the protocol, with minor impact and 
>preserving backward compatibility. Why not?