Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ash-multi-area-te-reqmts-01.txt

["Adrian Farrel" <afarrel@movaz.com>]

[BIG SNIP]
> > Working code that meets requirements is good; but if requirements are not
> > addressing a real life problem; then the code and its requirements do not
> > really matter that much.

and Yakov says...
> Which suggest that we need working code that addresses a real life
> problem.  I would certainly agree with that.
>
> But I don't think that in order to produce a working code that
> addresses a real life problem it is necessary to have a requirements
> document produced by the IETF WG. In fact, I have an existence
> proof that plenty of working code that addresses real life problems
> have been produced with no requirements documents produced by the
> IETF WGs (just think of OSPF, BGP, etc...)

Of course we don't _need_ requirements documents.
We don't even need any IETF drafts.
We can all go off into our little corners and produce working code that
addresses real life problems.

But let's assume that there is some value in the IETF and that lies in producing
and standardizing protocol definitions.

Given that, either:
- we allow all WGs to develop protocols and extensions as
  they see fit
or
- we charter a WG with setting the requirements for others
  to address
For better or worse we seem to be following the second model.

If requirements drafts are of no value then either allow people to waste their
time without trying to block them or scrap _all_ requirements documents.

Adrian (wondering why we are having this debate)