Latency

[Brian E Carpenter]

"Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)" wrote:
> 
> > 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? 

Provocative answer: when they suspect that the proponents
of a new protocol design are confused about their goals.

> 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. 

No, if a *change* to existing protocols is proposed, it seems
to me less likely that a requirements draft will be essential.
It is for completely new and more complex topics that
requirements tend to be ...required.

> 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?

It's always a good idea to know what the problem is before
solving it. Whether we always need to write down formal
requirements is what we are debating here.

      Brian