At 3:57 PM +0100 3/5/02, avri wrote:
>i can live with it either way, though i did state a preference. i
>have trouble seeing requirements as a
>standard. in fact even in the ietf requirements only
>have the status of informational, which is not any
>form of requirements status.
Good point.
>
>i think the exercise of trying to produce a common doc would be
>productive. but i am willing to either keep working groupb's doc or
>to work on a common contribution.
My strong preference is for a single requirements document but I
really encourage multiple architecture documents. The creativity, I
think, comes into approaches to solving the requirements.
Alternatively, I can see multiple focused requirements documents --
fault tolerance, traffic engineering, etc. Of course, that starts
getting close to the community input in IPng, but allowing research-y
technologies to be considered.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:04 EDT