At 12:51 AM 3/6/02 -0500, Vern Paxson wrote:
>> 1. If we were to produce a single document then
>> it would be very close to being a "standard"
>> (even though the name would not include those
>> 8 letters). This means that our whole process
>> would open up to the IETF's way of doing things.
>
>This really isn't the case. It's fine if the RG produces a single
>requirements document - though not required - and I agree with other
>posters that this would be quite desirable if doable.
I agree, if we peoduced one document then it would be fine.
But if that were _required_ then the IETF would end up
taking it as The Requirements and not just One Group Of People's
Requirements. Even worse, there are probably vendors, etc,
out there who, seeing the Internet Draft, will say "Aha!
The Requirements Standard!!" We _know_ that people do this,
so why cater to their lack of intellectual capacity?
F
=======================================
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient (s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information, including without
limitation, Confidential and/or Proprietary Information belonging to
Unisphere Networks, Inc. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original
message.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:04 EDT