Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)
saq66 at umkc.edu
Tue Feb 4 05:30:46 CET 2003
> 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?
More information about the Problem-statement