John C Klensin
john-ietf at jck.com
Wed Feb 26 16:51:44 CET 2003
Two observations about this, about which we largely agree...
--On Tuesday, 25 February, 2003 09:42 -0800 Dave Crocker
<dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
> 1) A PS is supposed to have no "known" errors. However
> there is nothing that says that a PS is required to try to
> solve any particular scope of requirement.
> That is, a PS is allowed to tackle a very narrow problem, if
> the PS will in fact do something useful. Narrow scope makes
> it easier to do things in a more timely fashion and with a
> better understanding of what is being done.
> Instead, we currently see WGs try to carve off and solve
> problems with very large scope.
We also see WGs that have adopted a narrow scope (explicitly
in the charter or through evolution) then produce documents
that claim or imply that they have solved a broader,
large-scope, problem. Especially when we do something at
narrow scope, it is important that documents be quite precise
about the known applicability of the result, where it may not
be applicable, and/or what risks might occur from using it out
of its domain of applicability. I suggest that we do that
> d) However we should stop trying to stuff everything,
> INCLUDING the kitchen sink, in a PS effort, especially for
> an entirely new service; and we should stop nit-picking PS
More information about the Problem-statement