Section 2.4 of draft-ietf-problem-statement-00.txt

[Spencer Dawkins]

What James said. 

I really don't want to rathole on whether we have
concensus on each problem, and absolutely not on consensus about
each detailed problem in the appendix. It would be fun, but I'm
not convinced (yet) that this consensus is required to provide 
a useful solution. If the solution team knows that SOME people
perceived a problem, that's probably good enough for a lot
of cases (not all, I agree).

In addition, is the solutions team required to 
solve the problem as we state it (eventually), or are supersets 
and subsets of the problem statement also in scope?

Spencer

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Kempf [mailto:kempf at docomolabs-usa.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 12:10 PM
> To: Brian E Carpenter; problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: Section 2.4 of draft-ietf-problem-statement-00.txt
> 
> 
> Process question to chairs: is the intent that we achieve 
> concensus on what the
> problems are for this draft, or is the draft supposed to 
> reflect the diversity
> of opinion about the problems as input to the solution procedure?
> 
>             jak