--- John Levine <johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com> wrote:
I'm not sure what "requirements" means in our context, but I don't
like any of the meanings I can think of.
As far as I can tell, the current goal is to create a charter that is amenable
to creating a WG. Those who think a WG is inappropriate get to not hum at the
relevant IETF BOF. Otherwise, I would ignore dissenters in the generation of
the charter.
In that light, I think we need requirements that are a balance between stating
what sort of outcome we want but not getting so specific that they delve into
the nitty-gritty that a WG should resolve.
Much as JohnL's requirements were Mom and Apple Pie, there is a lot to be said
for stating things at that level as it defers much of the inevitable technical
disagreements to the WG.
Mark.