Re: A question about requirements

[Bob Hinden <hinden@iprg.nokia.com>]

Bernard,

> They have whatever force the WG (and the IESG) wishes to give them.  Many
> of the recent requirements documents might be better off being forgotten
> entirely -- and some have been deemed so valuable as to not even be worth
> finishing.

...

> In practice there are elements of requirements documents which appear
> foolish in hindsight -- and I would argue that they only need be minded
> to the extent that they make sense once the WG understands the problem
> better.

I agree that writing a requirement documents is a good way for the working
group to agree on what the problem is they are tasked to solve.  I think
there is starting to be a lot of experience that completing the
requirements document and publishing it as an Info RFC is not worth the
effort.  I am starting to think that most requirements documents should be
"working" documents and never be published as RFCs.

I also think that developing requirements and a solution in parallel is
preferable to doing them sequentially.  It is too easy to write conflicting
or impossible requirements, where developing them in parallel allows for
feedback between the two and improves both.  It's also easier at times to
reach consensus on a solution (that generally meets the requirements) than
on the requirements document itself.  I think we tend to evaluate them
differetly.

Bob