Latency

[Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)]

> I certainly agree with the "problem statement" version of a 
> requirements document. 
  You have to be little pedantic for me. when do IESG insists
on *requirements* and *problem statement* spec? In general, when 
a BOF is initiated for working on new protocols (like dccp), WG 
was asked to work on a problem statement. If we have a *problem
at hand* and just want to propose change to protocols, IESG 
insist on a requirement draft. So, where comes the *problem 
statement* version of a requirement spec? You mean, its always
better to work on problem statement (be it new protocol or 
just changes) before writing requirements?