That's standard practice for a requirements list. First you wish
everything you could possibly want. Then you start to compromise. Ditto
on architectures.
I find that from a practical stand point this may be backwards. First,
you
set down in writing and get written buy-in from the parties in authority
(assuming there are any) what the proposed system/product will NOT DO and
Doesn't that make for a rather long list?
1. Doesn't fly to moon.
2. Won't make toast
3. Probibited from kicking cat
etc....
--
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg