IETF mission (RE: pausable explanation for the Document Series)

Scott W Brim swb at
Thu Jun 5 14:36:06 CEST 2003

On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 07:58:59AM -0700, Dave Crocker allegedly wrote:
> Perhaps the most serious difficulty with the way we use requirements
> statements is that they are often written with no concern about
> practicalities, and sometimes without concern about coherence for an
> integrated service.  And then during protocol specification the
> requirements are used to reject concerns about practicality and
> coherence.

How do you measure practicality of a requirement without assuming the
solution?  The reason we (occasionally) have requirements documents is
to get everyone to agree on what the problem is.  If someone says "my
customers require this", what are you going to do?  The answer is to use
requirements docs to define the working group before trying to define
the solution.  That is, if someone thinks the requirements are
impractical or not coherent, you have clear evidence that the WG should
be focused or split.  

More information about the Problem-statement mailing list