On 11/24/14 1:05 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote: > I did not say a requirements document. I said the Problem Statement, and > evaluation metrics. Neither are requirements.
I've been concerned about the proliferation of problem statement documents (and use case documents, but less about requirements documents). They introduce delay into the process. Sometimes that delay is necessary or helpful but often it isn't. The situations in which problem statement documents are helpful include those where the working group charter is unacceptably fuzzy or where there's a lot of contention for "ownership" of solutions. I'm not sure that I see that a problem statement document will be particularly helpful for moving this work forward. One thing that might minimize the process damage from having one is agreeing ahead of time that a dprive "problem statement" will *not* be published as an RFC. Melinda _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
