Latency

[Scott W Brim]

On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 01:43:21PM -0500, Keith Moore allegedly wrote:
> The push for "requirements" documents came from a realization that many
> groups have suffered from a failure to identify or constrain the problem
> they were trying to solve.  This remains a serious problem.   But we
> need to stop asking for "requirements" and start asking for "problem
> definitions".  "Requirements" should only be only one part of a problem
> definition, and should be limited to things that are essential for
> technical (NOT market) success of the protocol (where "success" is not
> only interoperation of the protocol itself but also ensuring that the
> protocol does not break other things). Other parts of the problem
> definition might be called "goals" and "non-goals" and "considerations".

I was thinking something along those lines too.  Requirements WGs often
seem to produce both requirements and a framework, and the requirements
documents are vulnerable as noted.  If a WG is in the problem definition
stage, we should require a framework doc, and require that there be a
requirements section of that doc, which should just be part of the
framework.