On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 12:39:07 -0400, Andrew Newton wrote:
If you are suggesting that completing a requirements doc will
lead to an unsuccessful working group, then I'd say that
working group would likely not produce anything anyway.
My own experience is that producing a formal requirements
document in an IETF working group is primarily effective at a)
taking a long time, and b) dissipating the enthusiasm of the
group, and c) imposing abstract constraints before there is a
practical basis for knowing what will work and what is really
essential for an initial deployment. This last point means that
the requirements frequently become Procrustean and impractical.
This matches my experience as well.
Of the lengthy list of working groups that you supplied, how long
did it take to produce the requirements documents for these
efforts and what is the current level of deployment and use for
those protocols?
I believe the two groups mentioned were CRISP and GEOPRIV. I don't know enough
about CRISP to comment, but if GEOPRIV is an example of a success due to
having used a requirements document, well, all I can say is it is at best a
very anomalous case. IMO the whole GEOPRIV effort was mismanaged dating back to
its origins in the SPATIAL effort. (I also think almost all of the blame for
this rests with the IESG and not the group itself, and since I was an IESG
member at the time I include myself as a responsible party. But that's an
entirely separate discussion not relevant to the matters at hand.)
As I said, one can start with concrete specifications and seek to
do minimal changes, or one can go down the path of a working
group design and development project, starting with a clean
slate.
Yep. Either one can be made to work.
Ned