At 11:38 AM 3/23/2003 +0000, Jon Kyme wrote:
> >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
Hehe, yes it could. Still, its amazing what quick progress can be made
when prohibitions within the "universe" of reasonable system/product
features are clearly delineated early.
steve
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg