dhc at dcrocker.net
Fri Feb 28 20:08:48 CET 2003
Wednesday, February 26, 2003, 3:51:44 PM, you wrote:
JCK> Two observations about this, about which we largely agree...
oh darn. no fun in that.
JCK> --On Tuesday, 25 February, 2003 09:42 -0800 Dave Crocker
JCK> <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
JCK> We also see WGs that have adopted a narrow scope (explicitly
JCK> in the charter or through evolution) then produce documents
JCK> that claim or imply that they have solved a broader,
JCK> large-scope, problem. Especially when we do something at
JCK> narrow scope, it is important that documents be quite precise
JCK> about the known applicability of the result, where it may not
JCK> be applicable, and/or what risks might occur from using it out
JCK> of its domain of applicability. I suggest that we do that
JCK> too rarely.
I am tending to view the requirement as one of carefully specifying
the problem that is being solved or the benefit that will be accrued.
Offhand, I think this is entirely compatible with what you are saying,
but is simply a different way of looking at it.
What is proving interesting to me is just how difficult it is to get
knowledgeable, serious participants to produce these sort statements
that cover the necessary scope -- no more and no less -- and the
necessary utility -- not to vague and not to precise.
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>
More information about the Problem-statement