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.
Requirements are not contrary to either approach.
right. that's why they are already in the draft charter.
so i suspect this exchange is about the amount of effort and time
to put into stating requirements. and i see that as getting back
to the question of urgency. if folks want something soon, then
the group needs to have a plan that permits this. if folks do
not see much urgency in standardizing this mechanisms, then we
can have a more leisurely schedule.
however, meeting an aggressive schedule requires that the working
group participate accordingly.
Well, you already have "Nov 04 Consensus statement of
threat analysis and requirements" which I think is optimistic.
it is a question of what is necessary to meet an aggressive
schedule. Requirements work can take anywhere from 1 week to 4
years. There is some anecdotal evidence that the utility of the
work is inversely proportional to the amount of time spent
creating it.
It would be more realistic if it were Jan 05.
My guess is that that pushes the schedule out proportionally, by
which I mean not just the 2 months you suggest adding, but
additional time for the later milestones.
However, I would like to know what you mean when you say
"requirements" here. Are these feature requirements or
function requirements or both?
whatever folks feel is needed to specify requirements.
d/
--
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://brandenburg.com>